Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Musala Durga Devi

MUSALA MOUNIKA, D/O.LATE SAMBASIVARAO, AGED 20 YEARS, (RR 2, 3 - DECLARED AS MAJORS AND R1 DISCHARGED AS THEIR GUARDIAN VIDE C.O.DT 19.03.2024 IN IA 2 AND 3/2024.)

¶16

2

¶17

MUSALA JAYAMMA, W/O.LATE VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O.KAZA VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶18

ANNADASU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.VISWASWARA. RAO, R/O.VENNADEVI VILLAGE, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN IS NOT NECESSARY PARTIES)

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶21

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA

¶24

2.KOMMAREDDY DIVAKARA REDDY

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

JUDGMENT:-

¶28

The present appeal is filed by A.P.S.R.T.C, aggrieved by order dated 15.02.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.107 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

¶30

The petitioners filed M.V.O.P.No.107 of 2015 under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made there under claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. on account of death of the husband of the 1^st petitioner (Musala Sambasiva Rao), in the accident that was occurred on 02.11.2014 in which the offending RTC bus bearing Registration No.AP 07 Z 0053 was involved.

¶31

It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was travelling on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 07 AQ 4294 and when he reached Dwaraka hotel, Mangalagiri, the 2^nd respondent/driver of the offending bus, drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which the

¶32

4

¶33

deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Manipal hospital, Tadepalli where he underwent treatment as an inpatient. It is further case of the petitioners that three surgeries were conducted in Manipal hospital and subsequently, he succumbed to injuries.

¶34

In this connection, a case in Cr.No.330 of 2014 was registered under Section 337 IPC against the 2^nd respondent. In view of the death of the deceased, the petitioners filed the above claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

¶35

The 1^st respondent filed counter affidavit and the same was adopted by the 2^nd respondent. It is the case of the 1^st respondent that the deceased while overtaking the bus, driven the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the motor cycle and fell down, thereby sustained bleeding injuries. It was further contention of the 1^st respondent that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and there was no negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent driver. It was further contended that the police did not investigate the case properly and in order to fasten liability on the respondents, charge sheet was filed. It was further contended

¶36

5

¶37

that there was no valid driving license to the deceased and the motor cycle was not in fit condition. It was further contended that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners did not implead the insurer of the motor cycle of the deceased and therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder of proper and necessary party. With the above contentions, the 2^nd respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶38

In order to prove the case of the petitioners, they have examined P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A8, Exs.X1 to X4 were marked through P.W.3.

¶39

On the other hand, the respondents have not examined any witness nor marked any documentary evidence. Considering the oral and documentary evidence put forth by the petitioners, the tribunal by order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.16,01,375/- together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Questioning the said order, the present appeal is filed.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶41

Perused the record.

¶42

6

¶43

The present appeal is filed on various grounds. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and there was no negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent. In order to prove the same, the respondents did not examine any witness on its behalf. On the other hand, the petitioners examined one Sri M.Leela Venkata Naidu as P.W.2, who was the eye witness to the accident. It is evident that he was shows as L.W.2 in the charge sheet that was marked as Ex.A2. Further P.W.2 has deposed that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent driver. Apart from the same, the petitioners have also marked copies of FIR and charge sheet in Exs.A.1 and A2. A perusal of the said documents would reveal that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent. Relying on the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal had held that the accident was occurred on account of the negligence of the 2^nd respondent. As noted supra, the respondents did not produce any evidence to substantiate their contention. In the absence of any evidence on record, the

¶44

7

¶45

contention of the respondents cannot be believed and accordingly the same is rejected.

¶46

It was further contended that, the Insurance Company of the motor cycle of the deceased was not impleaded as party respondent and therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of property party. In this regard, it is pertaining to note that though the respondents have pleaded that there is negligence on the part of the deceased, as discussed above, the respondents failed to prove the same, unless the respondents prove that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, question of impleading the insurer of the motor cycle does not arise. Accordingly, the said contention of the appellant is also rejected.

¶47

The respondents have also contended that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 the wife of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was owner of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.00 cents and cultivating the same. Apart from the said land, the deceased was also cultivating the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.3.50 cents by taking same on lease from one

¶48

8

¶49

Sri A.Srinivasarao and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have filed lease deed dated 10.04.2010 which was marked as Ex.A.6.

¶50

On perusal of the order under challenge and it is evident that the said document was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal as the same was unregistered and the petitioners failed to prove the same by examining the owner of the land Sri A.Srinivasarao. On over all consideration of the case, the tribunal had taken Rs.4,500/- as income of the deceased towards the supervisory charges in respect of the landed property above mentioned. By taking into consideration of the age of the petitioner, the tribunal had arrived at Rs.16,01,375/- as compensation together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Though the respondents have not filed appeal, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that while awarding compensation, the tribunal had not granted consortium to respondent Nos.2 to 4 as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias

¶51

9

¶52

Chuhru Ram & others 1 to include spousal, parental

¶53

and filial consortium.

¶54

On perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that the tribunal had awarded consortium to the 1^st petitioner, wife of the deceased and no consortium was granted in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 4 the children and the mother of the deceased. In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to award consortium @ Rs.40,000/- per head in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 4. Accordingly, the claim petitioners are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.17,21,375/-

¶55

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However the claim petitioners are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.17,21,375/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum. No order as to costs.

¶56

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

1 (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶58

_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

¶59

Dt.12.02.2026 SR

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Musala Durga Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Musala Durga Devi

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

Noti Bhargav Vs Sri G.Sai Prasad, I.A.S.

Thammisetty Bodaiah Vs Shri Dr S Venkateswar IAS

Komaragiri Pandu @ Harita Vs Modugula Yesu Babu

Hdfc General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Smt.Chintapalli Kondamma

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Marasu Chinna Ramaiah alias Ramaiah

Magaburi Kamamma Vs Pallala Abbai Reddy