The Apsrtc Vs C.Chinnakka

C CHINNAKKA, C .CHINNAKKA, W/O LATE C.SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. RESIDENTS OF VENKAT A REDDYPALLI ARUNDATHIVADA , RLY KODUR MANDAL, KADA P A DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R/O K UKKALADODDI VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶14

C NARASIMHULU, S/O LATE C.SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.VENKATA R EDDYPALLI ARUNDATHIVADA, RLY KODUR MANDAL, KADAP A DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R/O K U KKALADODDI VILLAGE, RENIGU N TA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRIC T )

¶15

C RAMANAIAH, S /O LATE C.SUBBARAMAIAH, AG E D ABOUT 35 YEARS.VENKATA R EDDYPALLI ARUNDATHIVADA, RLY KODUR MANDAL, KADAP A DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R/O K U KKALADODDI VILLAGE, RENIGU N TA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRIC T )

¶16

C BUJJAIAH, S/ O LATE C.SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.VENKATA R EDDYPALLI ARUNDATHIVADA, RLY KODUR MANDAL, KADAP A DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R/O K U KKALADODDI VILLAGE, RENIGU N TA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRIC T )

¶17

2

¶18

D KALAVATHI, D/O LATE C.SUBBARAMAIAH, W/O TIRUPALU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. VENKATAREDDYPALLI ARUNDATHIVADA, RLY KODUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R/O KUKKALADODDI VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT)

¶19

M NARAYANA REDDY, S/O PEDDA KONDA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DRIVER OF APSRTC BUS, PRODDUTUR DEPOT. (6TH RESPONDENT HEREIN IS DRIVER OF APSRTC NOT NECESSARY PARTY)

¶20

C SHANKAR, S/O SUBBAIAH, HINDU, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, BUT MAJOR, D.NO.2/11, THONDAMANADU VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶21

P MALLIKARJUNA, S/O ADINARAYANA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, DRIVER OF AUTO, K.BUDUGUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, RLY KODUR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 16.04.2021 passed in MVOP No.71 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District Judge, Tirupati to pass such

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant stay of execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No. 71 of 2016 dated. 16.04.2021 On the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass such

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶27

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.O UDAYA KUMAR

¶30

3

¶31

The Court made the following Judgment :

¶32

The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 16.04.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.71 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.6,64,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased C. Subbaramaiah in a motor accident that occurred on 26.09.2014.

¶33

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶34

The case of the claimants is briefly as follows:

¶35

Petitioner No.1 is wife; Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are sons and Petitioner No.5 is the daughter of deceased Subbaramaiah.

¶36

On 26.09.2014 at about 6.30 p.m, the deceased Subbaramaiah was proceeding in an auto bearing No. AP 03 Y 5914 from Railway Kodur towards his village and when the auto reached near Mango Market Yard on SH 31 Renigunta – Railway Kodur main road, the driver of the auto tried to escape the dog which came across the road turn the auto on its right side, in the meantime the Respondent No.2 driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 21 Z 0391 drove the same from Renigunta side towards Railway Kodur in a rash and negligent manner without taking due care and caution and dashed against the opposite coming auto. As a result, the deceased Subbaramaiah fell on the ground, then the back tyres of the bus ran over him and he died on the spot.

¶37

4

¶38

The Respondents 2 to 4 are remained exparte.

¶39

Before the Tribunal the Respondent No.1 filed Counter denying the allegations made in the Claim Petition and inter alia contended that the Respondent No.2 i.e driver of the bus drove the bus with care and caution from Tirupati to Proddutur. When the bus reached near fruit market at Kodur, the driver of the bus observed the auto which was coming in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed, then the driver of RTC bus went to left to him and slow down the bus. In the meanwhile, the driver of the auto came in high speed without taking care and hit to one dog, afterwards suddenly he took a turn towards right and applied breaks to control his auto, but the same is out of control due to sudden turn, one passenger of the auto fell on the road from auto and flipped 4 or 5 times and hit the right back wheel of the stationed bus, for that the deceased received severe injuries and caused death. There is negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶40

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for

¶41

trial:

¶42

“1. Whether the deceased C. Subbaramaiah died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicles APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 21 Z 0391 or Auto bearing No. AP 03 Y 5914?.

¶43

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents as claimed in the petition?

¶44

3. To what relief?”

¶45

5

¶46

On behalf of the Petitioners/Claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined

¶47

and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 and Ex.B2 was marked.

¶48

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 4, awarding compensation of Rs.6,64,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and respondents No.1 to 4 were jointly and severally held liable to pay the said amount within two months from the date of the order.

¶49

Aggrieved by the said award, the Respondent No.1/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that at the time of accident the driver of APSRTC was going slowly on the left side of the road, the deceased travelled in auto and the driver of the auto drove the auto with rash and negligent manner then lost his control over the auto and hit the bus while the deceased fallen on the road sustained injuries and died. Therefore, the Appellant herein is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month without any valid documentary proof and that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶50

6

¶51

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶52

Now the point for consideration is:

¶53

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶54

POINT:

¶55

On perusal of the Award, it can be observed that the Tribunal relying upon the evidence of PW-1, who is the Petitioner No.4 herein and also an eye witness to the accident, who categorically deposed that the deceased was working as loading and unloading coolie of banana saplings and that the accident occurred on 26.09.2014 at 6.30 a.m, at the time of accident the deceased was coming in auto from Kodur to Venkatareddipalem and he was present near mango market yard, when the auto was proceedings, one dog came across the auto but the driver of auto did not stop and proceeded further and in the mean time RTC bus was proceeding from Tirupati towards Kodur, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without taking due care and caution and dashed against the opposite coming auto. As a result, the deceased fell on the ground, then the back tyre of the bus ran over him and he died on the spot.

¶56

Coupled with Ex.A4 C.C of Charge Sheet, which goes to show that a Criminal Case was booked against both the drivers, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of

¶57

7

¶58

the auto bearing No. AP 03 Y 5914, but also driver of RTC bus i.e Respondent

¶59

No.2 and therefore the Tribunal held that the Respondents No.1 to 4 are

¶60

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶61

14. The Tribunal granted compensation under the following heads:

¶62

The income of the deceased per month is	Rs. 6,000/-
Annual income of Rs. 6,000 x 12	Rs. 72,000/-
As the dependents are 5 in Nos. therefore the personal expenses is taken into consideration is ¼ 72,000/ 4 = 18,000/- 72,000 – 18,000/-	Rs. 54,000/-
The multiplier application is ‘11’ 54,000 x 11 =	5,94,000/-
Conventional Heads
Loss of consortium	40,000/-
Funeral expenses	15,000/-
Love and affection	15,000/-
Total	6,64,000/-

¶63

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the

¶64

evidence of PW-2 that the deceased was working as loading and unloading coolie and getting Rs.500/- per day, apart from having 3 acres of land and getting income therein by raising Jasmin flower, mango, papaya, banana etc., and considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. In the absence of any documentary evidence assessed the income basing on the schedule in Minimum Wages Act applicable as on the date of accident.

¶65

However, it can be observed that the Tribunal has failed to award 10%

¶66

towards future prospects as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “National

¶67

8

¶68

Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and Others”¹ for the age group of 55 years and if the same is added, the loss of earnings would come to Rs. 6,000/- + 10% addition = Rs. 6,600/- per month. Out of Rs. 6,600/-, after deducting ¼ of his income towards his personal expenses, the loss of earnings would come to Rs. 4,950/- per month. After applying appropriate multiplier ‘11’ to the age group of 55 years, the loss of earnings would come to Rs.6,53,400/- (Rs. 4,950/- x 12 x 11). Apart from that the Tribunal has granted compensation under conventional heads viz., loss or consortium is Rs. 40,000/-; funeral expenses is Rs. 15,000/- and love and affection is Rs. 15,000/-, totaling Rs. 70,000/-. Thus, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.7,23,400/- by adding income of the deceased by 10% towards future prospects.

¶69

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and the amounts enhanced by this Court, are as follows:

¶70

S.No.	Head of the claim	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Amounts now enhanced by this Court
1.	Loss of earnings	5,94,000/-	6,53,400/-
2.	Loss of consortium	40,000/-	40,000/-
3.	Funeral expenses	15,000/-	15,000/-
4.	Love and affection	15,000/-	15,000/-
	Total	Rs. 6,64,000/-	Rs.7,23,400/-

¶71

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, while enhancing the compensation of Rs.7,23,400/- to the Claimants from Rs.6,64,000/- with interest at 9% p.a from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of

¶72

1 AIR 2017 SC 5157

¶73

9

¶74

realization. The Respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Claimants. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by

¶75

the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶77

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶78

Date: 02.02.2025

¶79

KK

The Apsrtc v. C.Chinnakka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Apsrtc v. C.Chinnakka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs S.K.Mohammed lqbal

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shaik Meeravali

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Shaik Ashraf Ali @ Shaik Ashraff

S. Vijaya Kumar, Vs Apsrtc

Apsrtc Vs Murikipudi Adam

Ammanabrolu Venkata Narasimharao, Vs Kolli Kishore