Apsrtc Vs Nelavala Sekhar

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to set aside Decree and Order dated 16.02.2022 'passed in M.V.O.P No. 184 of 2017 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Addl. District Judge, Nellore and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

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 pleased to condone the delay of (251) days in fling the appeal against MVOP No. 184 of 2017, dated 16.02.2022 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum- I Addl. District Judge, Nellore and to pass

¶19

2

¶20

VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2023

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶22

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 pleased to grant stay of operation of Decree and Order dated 16.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 184 of 2017 on the file of Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Addl. District Judge, Nellore pending disposal of the above appeal in the interest of justice and pass

¶23

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶24

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 pleased to permit them to withdraw their share of compensation amount out of the 50 percent of the deposited amount that was deposited by the 15t respondent herein as per the terms of the decree in M.V.O.P No. 184/2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Nellore, pursuant to the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 5-5-2023 in I.A. 2 of 2023 in MACMA No.196/2023 and to pass

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶26

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2023

¶32

J U D G M E N T:

¶33

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/APSRTC, challenging the order and decree dated 16.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.184 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.17,43,600/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred only) to the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein, as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, on account of death of deceased Nelavala Rajeshin, in a motor accident that occurred on 11.10.2016.

¶34

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

¶35

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

¶36

a) On 11.10.2016 at about 4:30 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle, with his wife as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing No.AP-26BG-3591, proceeding towards Allur Mandal from Gundalammapalem Village, when they reached opposite Jai Sri Hanuman Rice Mill on Allur–Nellore Road at Beeramgunta Village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District, an RTC bus bearing registration No. AP-28-ZS-424, coming from behind at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, both the deceased and his wife fell on the road, sustained grievous injuries, and died on the spot. Thereafter, the dead bodies were shifted to the Community Health Centre, Kovur, for post-mortem. After completion of post-mortem, the

¶37

4

¶38

VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2023

¶39

dead bodies were brought back to their village, incurring transport expenses of Rs.20,000/-. The matter was reported to Allur Police Station, Nellore District, and a case in Crime No.108 of 2016 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the RTC bus.

¶40

b) It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 28 years, hale and healthy, and was working as a Security Guard at Krishnapatnam Port, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to his sudden death, the claimants lost their breadwinner, as well as his love and affection. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶41

Before the Tribunal, the 2^nd respondent remained exparte.

¶42

The 1st respondent/APSRTC filed a counter denying the age, avocation, and income of the deceased, the dependency of the claimants, the manner of the accident, and the allegation of rash and negligent driving. It was further contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, that the RTC bus was not involved in the accident, and that the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. The compensation claimed was stated to be excessive, exorbitant, and imaginary.

¶43

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

¶44

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing Reg. No.AP-28-Z-4242?

¶45

5

¶46

VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2023

¶47

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and amount?

¶48

3. To what relief?”

¶49

On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, the 2^nd respondent was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were marked.

¶50

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with the following terms:

¶51

“In the result, this petition is allowed with costs, awarding compensation of Rs.17,43,600/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs forty three thousand six hundred only) with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit or realization, and out of the compensation awarded, an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty thousand only) is apportioned to the 1^st petitioner, and an amount of Rs.8,93,600/- (Rupees eight lakhs ninety three thousand six hundred only) is apportioned to the 2^nd petitioner. The 2^nd petitioner is entitled to costs and interest on the entire compensation amount. The Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit compensation amount within one month from the date of award. On such deposit, the 1^st petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) and the remaining amount of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees five lakhs fifty thousand only) shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of two years, and thereafter he is at liberty to withdraw the same. The 2^nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only), along with costs and interest on the entire compensation amount, and the remaining amount of Rs.5,93,600/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety three thousand six hundred only) shall be kept in fixed

¶52

6

¶53

VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2023

¶54

deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of two years, and thereafter she is at liberty to withdraw the same. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The Office is directed to prepare the decree after payment of Court fee, on the amount awarded.”

¶55

Aggrieved by the said award, APSRTC preferred the present appeal contending, inter alia, that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased; that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.2; and that in the absence of proof of income, fixation of notional income at Rs.9,000/- per month was erroneous.

¶56

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶57

Now the point for consideration is:

¶58

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶59

POINT:

¶60

On a perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that, though the appellant contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, the claimants have relied upon the testimony of P.W.2, an eyewitness to the incident, to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. P.W.2, having given a detailed narration about the manner of the accident, categorically deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

¶61

7

¶62

VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2023

¶63

the driver of the said vehicle and that the deceased, having sustained grievous injuries in the said accident, died on the spot. In his crossexamination, P.W.2 denied the suggestion the accident occurred due to overtaking the front vehicle and hitting another vehicle coming in opposite direction and that the accident was happened due to mistake of rider of motorcycle but not the RTC bus. A further perusal of the impugned award discloses that nothing adverse was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to discredit or discard his evidence. His testimony clearly establishes that the driver of the APSRTC bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Ex.A1/attested copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A5/certified copy of the charge sheet also lend support to the said version. Though respondent No.2, the driver of the APSRTC bus, was examined as R.W.1 and deposed that he did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, it is to be noted that he did not file any written statement. In any event, such a self-serving statement cannot be given due weight in the absence of any corroborative evidence. In view of the above, it is clear that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard does not warrant any interference.

¶64

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it can be observed that, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was working as a

¶65

8

¶66

VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2023

¶67

Security Guard at Krishnapatnam port and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, in the absence of any documentary proof, the Tribunal fixed the notional income at Rs.300/- per day i.e., Rs.9,000/- per month and Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. As there are two dependents in the present case, the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, which comes to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.1,08,000 X 1/3). After such deduction, the contribution of the deceased to the family was assessed at Rs.72,000/- (Rs.1,08,000 – Rs.36,000/-). Considering that the deceased was aged about 28 years, the Tribunal rightly added 40% towards future prospects, in terms of the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation¹ , thereby arriving at Rs.1,00,800/- per annum (Rs.72,000/- + 28,800/-). Applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘17’ for the age group of 28 years, the loss of earnings was correctly assessed at Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.1,00,800 X 17).

¶68

Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, which are found to be just and reasonable. However, the Tribunal failed to award any amount under the head of loss of consortium to the parents of the deceased, who lost their only son and daughter-in-law. In the opinion of this Court, apart from the aforesaid amounts, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of filial consortium, totaling Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000 X 2).

¶69

1 2017 ACJ 2700

¶70

9

¶71

VS,J MACMA No.196 of 2023

¶72

Thus, to sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal, in the light of the computations made above, are as follows:

¶73

Head	Amount granted by the Tribunal	Amount now awarded by this Court
Loss of earnings	Rs.17,13,600/-	Rs.17,13,600/-
Funeral expenses	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.15,000/-
Loss of consortium	--	Rs.80,000/-
Total	Rs.17,43,600/-	Rs.18,23,600/-

¶74

Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. However, the order dated 16.02.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.184 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Nellore, is modified by enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimants from Rs.17,43,600/to Rs.18,23,600/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶76

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶77

Date: 07.04.2026 KGR

Apsrtc v. Nelavala Sekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsrtc v. Nelavala Sekhar

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

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Bommu Vakalamma

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Chakali Ramudu

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Kongana Bhavani

New India Assuranee Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Biddika Nukamma

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Palli Mary/Palla Mary

Yerragutla Manju Bhargavi Reddy Vs Naga Chandra Mohan