Dismissed

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jan 2025MACMA/402/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two appeals filed by APSRTC against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal orders awarding compensation for deaths in a bus-motorcycle collision. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of the driver's negligence and the compensation amount, rejecting claims of contributory negligence and excessive income. Appeals dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeals M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 228 of 2020 and 402 of 2021 dismissed. No order as to costs.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MACMA Nos.228 of 2020 and 402 nf 7n9i

¶6

MACMA No.228 of 2070

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18-06-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 64 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. Between:

¶8

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Rep by Managing Director, PNBS, Vijayawada.

¶9

...Appellant/Respondent

¶10

AND

¶11

Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7

¶12

Shaik Mabunni, W/o. Shafi, Muslim aged about 32 years, R/o.

¶13

Vinjamuru Village and Mandal.

¶14

Shaik Shakila alias Sharmila, W/o. Maa Masthan, Muslim, aged about 30 years, R/o A.S. Peta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶15

...Respondents/Claimants

¶16

P. Pitchaiah, S/o. Yanadi Setty, Hindu, driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5507, E.No.516766, residing at Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal. SPSR Nellore District.

¶17

...Respondent/2"'' Respondent

¶18

¶19

(4*^ respondent is not a necessary party to the appeal)

¶20

Shaik Gousunnisa, W/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 43 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal SPSR Nellore District.

¶21

Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef , Muslim, aged 22

¶22

Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal SPSR Nellore District.

¶23

Shaik Reshma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef Muslim, aged 19

¶24

Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal SPSR Nellore District.

¶25

(Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on Record as LR of the deceased 1®* Respondent as per Court Order Dated 18.12.2024 in IA.Nos.1 to 3/2024 in MAGMA No.228 of 2020)

¶26

...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Sanisefty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A Sree Ram, representing on behalf of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma

¶27

MACMA No.402 nf ono'i

¶28

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18-06-2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 65 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. Between:

¶29

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation , Rep by Managing Director, PNBS, Vijayawada.

¶30

...Appellant/Respondent

¶31

AND

¶32

Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7,

¶33

Shaik Mabunni, W/o. Shafi, Muslim, aged about 32 years, R/o. Vinjamuru Village and Mandal.

¶34

Shaik Shakila alias Sharmila, W/o. Maa Masthan, Muslim, aged about 30 years, R/o A.S. Peta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶35

...Respondents/Claimants

¶36

P. Pitchaiah, S/o. Yanadi Setty, Hindu, driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5507, E.No.516766, residing at Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶37

...Respondent/2"'' Respondent

¶38

(4''’ respondent is not a necessary party to the appeal)

¶39

Shaik Gousunnisa, W/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 43 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶40

Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 22 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶41

Shaik Reshma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 19 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore^District. (Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on Record as LR of^thedeceased 1 St Respondent as per Court Order Dated 18.12.2024 in IA.Nos.1^to3/2024 in MAGMA No.402 of 2021)

¶42

...Respondents

¶43

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC)

¶44

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A Sree Ram, representing^onbehalfof Sri Harinath Reddy Soma

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶47

M.A.C.M.A.No.228 of 2020 and 402 of 2021

¶48

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶49

M.A.C.M.A.No.228 of 2020 is directed against the order,^dated 18.06.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.64 of 2017 and M.A.C.M.A.No.402 of 2021 is directed against the order, dated 18.06.2019 in^{M.V.O.P.No.65of} 2017 on the file the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Nellore (hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal').

¶50

Since these appeals arise out of same accident and^asthe material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by way

¶51

of common judgment.

¶52

Both the appeals are preferred by the A.P.S.R.T.C./owner of Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5507 (hereinafter referred as "crime bus"). The respondent^Nos.lto3are children of the deceased Shaik Madar Saheb and Shaik Beebi Jan (hereinafter called as 'the deceased No.l and 2') who^died in a motor accident. The respondent No.4 is driver of the^crimevehicle and respondent Nos.5 to 7 are legal representatives of the respondent No.l-late Shaik Sharif.

¶53

, The case of the claimants, in the petition before^theTribunal is that:

¶54

¶55

i). On 28.09.2014 at about 09.45 A.M., when Shaik Beebi J0n and her husband Shaik Madar Saheb were proceeding on a motor cycle which was driven by her husband and at about 9.30 A.M., when they reached near turning at Ananthapuram Village, Kaligiri Mandal, at that time, one A.P.S.R.T.C Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5507 belong to Kavali Depot while proceeding from Gudladona Village to Siddanakonduru being driven by 2""^ respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle,^as a result, Shaik Madar Saheb died on the spot and Shaik Beebi Jan sustained severe injuries and she was shifted to Elite Hospital, Tirupati, where she succumbed to injuries on 05.10.2014 at 10.00 A.M. A case was registered in Crime No. 148 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the 2"'^ respondentⁱⁿ Kaligiri Police Station,

¶56

iii) Seeking for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- each along with interest against respondents 1 and 2 on the death of the deceased Nos.l and 2 in a motor accident, the claimants filed motor vehicle original petition.

¶57

¶58

Respondent No.l filed counter denying the averments^made in the petition and further denied the manner of accident, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is further^{contendedthat} there is no negligence on the part of driving of 2'^^ respondent and there is negligence on the part of the rider of motor cycle and that the amount claimed is excessive.

¶59

Respondent No.2 being the driver of the bus filed counter denying manner of accident, age and income of the deceased.^He further contended that the drove the vehicle slowly^andduetorash and negligent riding of motor cycle only, the accident^occurred.

¶60

Based on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal^settled the following issues for enquiry in M.V.O.RNo.64 of^2017:

¶61

Whether theaccident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of A.RS.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP^11Z 5507 by the 2""^ Respondent and whether it resulted death of Shaik Beebi Jan?

¶62

Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which^of the respondents?

¶63

To what relief?

¶64

Based on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal^settled the following issues for enquiry in M.V.O.RNo.65 of^2017:

¶65

¶66

Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and

¶67

negligent driving of A.RS.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 11 2 5507 by the 2^'" Respondent and whether it resulted death of Shaik Madar Saheb?

¶68

Whether the petitioners are entitled for claim of

¶69

compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

¶70

To what relief?

¶71

During the course of enquiry before the tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWslto 3wereexamined and Exs.A.l to A.4weremarked. On behalf of the respondents, RWl is examined in both the petitions. 10. On the material, the tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC, held that the claimants are entitled compensation of Rs.6,10,800/- with interest at 7.50/0 per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit in both the petitions. 11. Heard Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and Sri A. Sree Ram, learned counsel representing Sri S. Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants. 12. Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding

¶72

¶73

that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus without there being any acceptable^evidence on record. The Tribunal ought to have seen that there is negligence on the part of the deceased while driving the motor^bikewithout following the road traffic rules. There is no proof of employment of the both the deceased and the Tribunal erred in taking notional income of both the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. There^is no cogent evidence adduced by the claimants for granting compensation and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and hence, to allow the appeals.

¶74

Sri A. Sree Ram, learned counsel representing Sri S.^Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants submits that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus the accident occurred and the Tribunal rightly awarded compensation after considering the material on record and hence, prays to dismiss the appeals.

¶75

Now, the point that arise for determination is "whether the orders of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?

¶76

POINT:

¶77

¶78

It is not in dispute about the death of the both the deceased in the incident and involvement of the RTC^Bus.The appellant is also not disputing about the same.

¶79

It is the only contention raised by the learned^counselfor the appellant that there is contributory negligence^onthepartof the deceased No.l in occurrence of the incident. The^Tribunal failed to consider the said aspect and tribunal also erred in calculating the actual income of the deceased. The multiplier applied by the tribunal is also not in accordance with^law.

¶80

In view of the above contention, this Court perused^the material placed on record. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime bus, the claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3. PWl is the son of the deceased^who is admittedly not the eye witness to the accident. In^supportofhis case, he got marked Ex.Al to A3 documents. Since he is not an eye witness, his evidence is no way helpful on whose^negligence the accident occurred. Now, coming to the evidence^ofPWs2and witnesses to the incident admittedly testified about 3 who are eye the rash and negligent act of the driving of the driver^ofthe also elicited during cross ofending vehicle Nothing was

¶81

¶82

¶83

examination to disbelieve their testimony and no evidence is put forth to say that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased No.l in causing the accident. Therefore, as righty held by the tribunal, the Respondent No.l failed to^rebutthesaid evidence and it is clearly held that the Respondent No.2 is responsible for the accident.

¶84

Coming to the dependents, it can be safely held^thatPWs1 to 3 are the claimants who are children of the deceased and subsequently, the claimant No.l died and his legal representatives are brought on record and they are^entitledfor the compensation.

¶85

Now, with regard to income of the deceased, since here^is no dispute about the age of the both the deceased as 55 and 53 years, basing on Ex.Al to A3, though the claimants^haveclaimed that the deceased are earning Rs. 10,000/- each per month, but in the absence of any documentary proof in respect of the same, assuming the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/each, has rightly applied the multiplier and calculated the amounts entitled by the claimants and awarded compensation^of Rs.6,10,800/- each on the death of both the deceased.

¶86

3E>

¶87

¶88

Having regard to the above discussion, no interference warrants to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding all aspects and as there i* •s no need to disturb the well-articulated orders passed by the Tribunal, as such, the appeals preferred by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is answered against the appellant.

¶89

In the result, M.A.CM.A.228 of 2020 and 402 of 2021 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶90

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated,

¶91

Miscellaneous petitions pending it any, stand closed.

¶92

Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

nlll Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore SPSR Nellore District, (with

¶97

records If any)

¶98

Advocate

¶99

^ [ORJC^ Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC)

¶100

One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC]

¶101

¶102

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records)

¶103

Three CD Copies

vna

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/01/2025

COMMON JUDGMENT + DECREE

¶108

MACMA.Nos.228 of 2020 & 402 of 2021

¶109

DISMISSING THE MACMAs WITHOUT COSTS

¶110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶111

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶112

PRESENT

¶113

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶114

MACMA No.228 of 2020

¶115

Between:

¶116

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by Managing Director, PNBS, Vijayawada.

¶117

...Appellant/Respondent

¶118

AND

¶119

Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7,

¶120

Shaik Mabunni, W/o. Shafi, Muslim, aged about 32 years, R/o. Vinjamuru Village and Mandal.

¶121

Shaik Shakila alias Sharmila, W/o. Maa Masthan, Muslim, aged about 30 years, R/o A.S. Peta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶122

...Respondents/Claimants

¶123

P. Pitchaiah, S/o. Yanadi Setty, Hindu, driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5507, E.No.516766, residing at Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶124

...Respondent/2"'^ Respondent

¶125

(4'^ respondent is not a necessary party to the appeal)

¶126

Shaik Gousunnisa, W/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 43 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶127

« ,

¶128

Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 22 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶129

Shaik Reshma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 19 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶130

(Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on Record as LR of^thedeceased 1 St Respondent as per Court Order Dated 18.12.2024 in IA.Nos.1^to3/2024 in MAGMA No.228 of 2020)

¶131

...Respondents

¶132

Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles^Act, against^the Judgment and Decree dated 18-06-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.^No.64of2017 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims^{Tribunal-cum-IVAdditional} District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶133

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing^the grounds^of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A Sree Ram, representing on behalf of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for Respondents.

¶134

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶135

¶136

That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed;

¶137

That there shallbe no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶138

//TRUE COPY//

¶139

Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI C^^FFICER

¶140

SECTI

¶141

¶142

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV^Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore^District.

¶143

Three CD Copies

vna

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/01/2025

DECREE

MACIVIA.No.228 of 2020

¶149

DISMISSING THE MACMA

¶150

¶151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶152

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶153

PRESENT

¶154

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶155

MACMA No.402 of 2021

¶156

Between:

¶157

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by Managing Director, PNBS, Vijayawada.

¶158

...Appellant/Respondent

¶159

AND

¶160

Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7,

¶161

Shaik Mabunni, W/o. Shafi, Muslim, aged about 32 years, R/o. Vinjamuru Village and Mandal.

¶162

Shaik Shakila alias Sharmila, W/o. Maa Masthan, Muslim, aged about 30 years, R/o A.S. Peta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶163

...Respondents/Claimants

¶164

P. Pitchaiah, S/o. Yanadi Setty, Hindu, driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 5507, E.No.516766, residing at Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶165

...Respondent/2"'' Respondent

¶166

(4'*^ respondent is not a necessary party to the appeal)

¶167

Shaik Gousunnisa, W/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 43 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶168

¶169

Shaik Karishma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 22 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶170

Shaik Reshma, D/o. Late Shaik Sharif @ Shareef, Muslim, aged 19 Years, R/o. Jaladanki Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

¶171

(Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on Record as LR of the deceased 1®* Respondent as per Court Order Dated 18.12.2024 in IA.Nos.1 to 3/2024 in MAGMA No.402 of 2021)

¶172

...Respondents

¶173

¶174

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of Petition, the Order and Decree of the Trial Court and the material papers in the Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sanisetty Venkateswarlu (SC for APSRTC), Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A Sree Ram, representing on behalf of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for Respondents.

¶175

This Court doth Order and decree as follows:

¶176

¶177

That the appeal be and is hereby dismissed;

¶178

That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

¶179

Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

¶184

Three CD Copies

vna

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/01/2025

DECREE

MACWIA.No.402 of 2021

¶190

o 03 SEP 20?5 S)
Current section . ^

¶191

DISMISSING THE MACMA

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramavathi Balu, Guntur Dist Vs v Sreenu Naik, Guntur Dist & 2 Others

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Bhumireddy Nageswasri

Tottaramudi Simhachalam Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P

Sri Vuddagiri Nagavenkata Ramana Gupta @ Ramesh Vs Smt. Vuddagiri Radhika & the State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shaik Sharif (Died) as per LRs 5 to 7

Chilaka Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh