Apsrtc Vs Murikipudi Adam

APSRTC, REP.BY I TS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVI N G ITS OFFICE AT APSRTC DEP O T, VIJAYAWADA TOWN, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (OWNER OF APS R TC BUS BEARING NO.AP07 Z 0074 ) .

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

MURIKIPUDI ADAM, S/O CHINNA AKKAIAH, AGE D 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 3-194, SC COLONY, BESIDE CHURCH, PAMIDIMARRU VI L LAGE, H/O KONDAKAVUR, GUR A VAYAPALEM, NARASARAOPET M ANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

MURIKIPUDI BAL A RAJU, S/O ADAM, AGED 21 YE A RS,RESIDING AT D.NO. 3-194, S C COLONY, BESIDE CHURCH, P AMIDIMARRU VILLAGE, H/ O KONDAKAVUR, GUR A VAYAPALEM, NARASARAOPET M ANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

MURIKIPUDI LIKHITHA, D/O ADAM, AGED 10 YE A RS, MINOR, REPRESENTED B Y HER FATHER /1ST RESPONDEN T MURIKIPUDI ADAM, RESIDING AT D.NO. 3-194, SC COL O NY, BESIDE CHURCH, PAMIDIMARRU VILLAGE, H/O K ONDAKAVUR, GURAVAYAPALE M , NARASARAOPET MAND A L, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

VADAMUDI HARI KRISHNA, S/O KOTESWARA R A O, AGED 41 YEARS, EMPL O YEE NO. 729040, NARASARA O PET DEPOT. (DRIVER OF APS R TC BUS BEARING NO. AP 07 Z 007 4 )

¶16

2

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to allow the MACMA by setting aside the order and decree dated 2204-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 13 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

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 to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated 22-04-2022 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 13 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District including of execution proceedings, pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶22

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.RAMA MOHAN RAO KOTHA

¶25

3

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶27

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 272 OF 2022

¶28

JUDGMENT:-

¶29

The M.A.C.M.A under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, (in short ‘M.V.Act’), has been filed by the Appellant/ Respondent No.2, challenging the Award, dated 22.04.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.No.13 of 2020 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet (in short ‘the Tribunal), wherein the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 13,86,000/- to the respondents 1 to 3 herein, as against the claim of Rs. 20,00,000/-.

¶30

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

¶31

Brief facts of the case is that on 07.07.2019, the Murikipudi Peramma, hereinafter referred to as “deceased’ was returning from Guntur to Narasaraopet and reached near Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Jonnalagadda at 11.00 a.m as pillion rider on the bike bearing registration No. AP 07 CE 3314, by that time the Respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending RTC bus came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike. Resulting the deceased fell down sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The rider Balu Naik also sustained injuries, who was shifted to hospital. The Police, Narasaraopet Rural Police

¶32

4

¶33

Station registered a case in FIR No. 271 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 337, 304-A of IPC.

¶34

The Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

¶35

The Respondent No.2 filed Counter denying the material

¶36

averments in the petition and inter alia contended that there is no negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1. In the said two wheeler three persons were travelled against the rules and unable to control the vehicle and dashed the RTC bus. There is no fault on the part of the driver of the RTC bus. The Petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e insurer of the motor cycle. The compensation claimed by the Petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. For all these and other grounds, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues and additional issues for consideration:

¶38

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing Registration No. AP 07 Z 0074 and caused the death of Murikipudi Peramma?

¶39

2. Whether petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so? Wheat is the quantum and from whom? And

¶40

3. To what relief?

¶41

During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, the

¶42

Petitioner No.2 himself is examined as P.W.1, and got examined P.W.2

¶43

5

¶44

and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the Respondents, the Respondent No.1 himself got examined as R.W.1, but no document is marked.

¶45

The Tribunal having observed that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1, resulting the death of the deceased as per investigation done by the Police, held that the Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Accordingly, the claim petition is allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs. 13,86,000/- with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said liability, the Appellant/ Respondent No.2 preferred this appeal.

¶46

Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant/ APSRTC and Sri Rama Mohan Rao Kotha, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3.

¶47

Learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the Tribunal below erroneously held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC without there being any acceptable evidence on record. The RTC Bus never hit the deceased in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal without appreciating the evidence, awarded compensation, though there is contributory negligence on the part of motorcycle being driven by three persons, who dashed the bus

¶48

6

¶49

negligently. As such, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and as such, the award of the tribunal is not sustainable under law.

¶50

Now the point for consideration is:

¶51

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶52

POINT:

¶53

The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW-1, who is Petitioner No.2 and brother of the deceased and also an eye-witness of the said accident has categorically deposed that his sister was aged 19 years and while returning from Guntur on a motorcycle of Balu Naik at 11.00 a.m on 07.07.2019, when they reached Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Jonnalagadda, the Respondent No.1 being the driver of offending RTC bus came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the rider and pillion rider of motorcycle fell down and thereafter she sustained injuries.

¶54

Coupled with Ex.P1- copy of First Information Report in Crime No. 271 of 2019, Ex.P3-Inquest Report and Ex.P4- Charge Sheet filed in C.C.No.827 of 2019 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet, would show that the investigation done by the Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural established the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of the driver of the RTC Bus, resulting the death of the deceased, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to

¶55

7

¶56

negligence on the part of the Respondent No.1, resulting death of the deceased.

¶57

As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, as the deceased was self employed and aged about 19 years, 50% of her income, which comes to Rs.3,000/-, was added towards future prospects. Accordingly, her monthly income would come to Rs.9,000/- (Rs.6000/- + Rs.300/-).

¶58

As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel and on perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed that though the deceased was aged about 19 years and unmarried, the Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3^rd towards her personal and living expenses contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “ National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ ” instead of 50%. If 50% of her income is deducted towards personal expenses, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.4,500/-. Accordingly, annual income would come to (Rs.4500/- X 12) Rs.54,000/-. After applying the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 19 years, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “ Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation² ”, the loss of dependency would come to (54,000 X 18) Rs.9,72,000/-. Further, though the Claimant Nos.2 and 3, who are the children of the deceased also entitled for compensation under the head of loss of consortium, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- to claimant No.1 alone. In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to

¶59

1 2018 ACJ 2782

¶60

2 2009 ACJ 1298

¶61

8

¶62

award an amount of Rs.40,000/- each to the Claimant Nos.2 and 3 under the

¶63

head of loss of consortium as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶64

“ National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi ”.

¶65

Apart from the said modification, Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and transportation charges, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection awarded by the Tribunal needs no interference.

¶66

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads

¶67

and the amounts reduced/modified by this Court, are as follows:

¶68

S.No.	Head of the claim	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Amounts now awarded by this Court
1.	Loss of Dependency	Rs.12,96,000/-	Rs.9,72,000/-
2.	Towards funeral and transportationcharges	20,000/-	20,000/-
3.	Towards loss of love and affection	30,000/-	30,000/-
4.	Towards loss of consortium to claimants 1 to 3	40,000/-	1,20,000/-
	Total	Rs.13,86,000/-	Rs.11,42,000/-

¶69

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed reducing the compensation to Rs.11,42,000/- from Rs.13,86,000/with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount of Rs.11,42,000/- 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.

¶70

9

¶71

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶72

closed.

¶73

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶74

Dated: 02.02.2026

¶75

KK

Apsrtc v. Murikipudi Adam

Case brief

What is this about?

Apsrtc v. Murikipudi Adam

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

The Apsrtc Vs C.Chinnakka

S. Vijaya Kumar, Vs Apsrtc

Ammanabrolu Venkata Narasimharao, Vs Kolli Kishore