The Apsrtc Vs Penubadi Padmavathi

¶1

[3333]

¶2

APHC010358312022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 292/2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

THE APSRTC, ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NEAR RTC BUS STAND, KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT.

¶10

THE APSRTC, REP BY ITS DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, RAJAMPETA DEPOT, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶11

...APPELLANT(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

PENUBADI PADMAVATHI, W/O LATE P.BALA GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE.

¶14

PENUBADI GURU BANDHAVI, W/O GOPIRATHA REDDY, D/O LATE P.BALA GURUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE.

¶15

PENUBADI ANJALI PAVANI, D/O LATE P.BALA GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, HINDU, UNMARRIED.

¶16

PENUBADI KULDEEP SAIRAM MANIKANTA, S/O LATE P.BALA GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, HINDU, STUDENT.

¶17

H ESWARAIAH, S/O NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, DRIVER OF APSRTC, BUS BEARING NO.AP04Z0149, RIO POOJARIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, GOPANNAPALLI POST, GALIVEEDU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. (5TH RESPONDENT IS HEREIN DRIVER OF APSRTC NOT NECESSARY PARTY)

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

2

¶20

VS,J MAMCMA No.292 of 2022

¶21

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased topleased to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the order and decree dated 28.02.2022 passed in MVOP No. 575 of 2018 On the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principe District Judge, Kadapa to pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶23

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 execution of decree in pursuant to MVOP No. 575 of 2018 dated. 28.02.2022 On the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principle District Judge, Kadapa pending disposal of the above MACMA and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶25

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

VS,J MAMCMA No.292 of 2022

¶31

JUDGMENT:

¶32

The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 28.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.575 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.11,91,128/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety One thousand one hundred and twenty eight only) to claimant Nos.1 to 3, as against the claim of Rs.50,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased, Penubadi Bala Guravaiah, in a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.01.2018.

¶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, in brief, is as follows:

¶35

On 17.01.2018, the deceased, who was working as a Conductor in APSRTC attended his duties as Conductor to the bus bearing No.AP04 Z 0149. The said bus was plying between Rajampet and Bangalore. While on its way, respondent No.1 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, when it reached near Immareddyhalli Railway Bridge at 5.45 a.m., he lost control over the bus and dashed against the wall of the Railway Bridge. The deceased, who was sitting on the backside of the driver‟s seat, fell down and sustained serious injuries to his head, face and both legs, and blood oozed from his ears and mouth. He was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore. Therefore, he was shifted from NIMHANS Hospital to SVIMS

¶36

4

¶37

VS,J MAMCMA No.292 of 2022

¶38

Hospital, Tirupati through ambulance, and transportation charges, treatment expenses at Bangalore, and other incidental expenses were incurred. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died. Basing on the complaint given by the 1^st petitioner, a case was registered against the 1^st respondent in Crime No.29 of 2018 of Chintamani Rural Police Station, and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the 1^st respondent.

¶39

The petitioners/claimants contended that the deceased was working as Grade-II Conductor in APSRTC with Employee No.410707 and was drawing a salary of Rs.49,940/- per month. The 1^st petitioner is the wife of the deceased. The petitioners 2 to 4, who are majors, are the children of the deceased and petitioner No.2 is married. All were dependent on the deceased, who was contributing his earnings to the family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income. Therefore, they sought compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3, being the driver and owners of the offending vehicle respectively.

¶40

Before Tribunal, respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte.

¶41

Respondent No.2/APSRTC filed a written statement, denying the rash and negligent driving of respondent No1. It denied the age of the deceased, his avocation, and the allegedly monthly income of Rs.49,940/-. It also denied the manner in which the accident was stated to have occurred, as well as the treatment taken and the expenditure incurred towards transportation and other

¶42

5

¶43

VS,J MAMCMA No.292 of 2022

¶44

incidental charges. It contended that the claim is excessive and the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation.

¶45

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

¶46

“1.Whether the deceased Penubadi Bala Guravaiah, died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 18.01.2018 near Immareddyhalli Railway Bridge, Chintamani Taluk due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP04 Z 0149?

¶47

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

¶48

To what relief?”

¶49

On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

¶50

After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 to 3, awarding compensation of Rs.11,91,128/- to petitioners No.1 to 4 with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondents No.1 to 3 were directed to deposit the said compensation amount within three months from the date of the award. On such deposit, petitioner No.1 was held entitled to Rs.7,91,128/- with proportionate interest and costs and was permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- forthwith and the remaining balance was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period

¶51

6

¶52

VS,J MAMCMA No.292 of 2022

¶53

of two years. After completion of two years, petitioner No.1 was permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest thereon. Petitioner No.2 was held entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and was permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest. Petitioners No.3 and 4 were entitled for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each and were permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest.

¶54

Aggrieved by the said award, respondents No.2 and 3/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.11,91,128/- without proper evidence. It was contended that the claimants failed to establish negligent driving on the part of the RTC driver of the bus bearing No.AP 04 Z 0149 because of which the accident occurred on 18.01.2018. It was also contended that the compensation awarded is exorbitant and excessive and, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.

¶55

On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1

¶56

to 4 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

7

¶60

VS,J MAMCMA No.292 of 2022

¶61

POINT:

¶62

To prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent No.1/driver of the crime vehicle, the claimants relied upon the evidence of P.W.2. A perusal of the record reveals that P.W.2, who was an eye-witness, deposed that on the date of accident, he was travelling in the bus from Bangalore to Rayachoty, that the deceased was the Conductor of the said bus and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent/driver of the crime vehicle. No witness was examined on behalf of the Corporation nor any evidence was produced to assert that there was no negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent/driver of the crime vehicle and that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Exs.A1 and A5, attested copies of FIR and charge sheet respectively, would show that a case in Crime No.29/2018 was registered on the file of Chintamani Rural Police Station, Karnataka, and after completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet alleging that the 1^st respondent is liable for commission of the said offence. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioners established that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent/driver of the APSRTC bus only. The finding of the Tribunal to that effect needs no interference.

¶63

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants filed Ex.A12-Payslip of the deceased. The said document would show that the

¶64

8

¶65

VS,J MAMCMA No.292 of 2022

¶66

deceased worked as a Conductor in APSRTC and was receiving a gross salary of Rs.19,456/- and a net salary of Rs.7,170/- per month. To prove the contents of Ex.A12-Payslip, the Depot Manager of APSRTC was examined as PW3 and in his evidence, he confirmed the issuance of Ex.A12 and its contents. Thus, there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record to establish that the deceased was working as a Conductor in APSRTC. However, the gross income of cannot be taken into consideration. The net salary of Rs.7,170/- per month is to be considered, and no interference is warranted with the finding of the Tribunal in that regard. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased is Rs.86,040/- (7,170/- X 12). As the number of dependant family members is 4 to 6, the Tribunal has deducted 1/4^th (Rs.86,040/- X 1/4^th = Rs.21,510/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased, which is in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation¹ and thus, needs no interference by this Court. After such deduction, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.64,530/- (Rs.86,040/- – Rs.21,510/-). By applying the relevant multiplier of „9‟ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 57 years, as recorded in Ex.A3-Inquest Report and Ex.A4-Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.5,80,770/- (Rs.64,530 X 9) towards the loss of income, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case.

¶67

1 2009 ACJ 1298

¶68

9

¶69

VS,J MAMCMA No.292 of 2022

¶70

Further, having considered Exs.A9 to A11- medical bills, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,88,858/- towards medical expenses covered by the said bills, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering before death. It is pertinent to note that nowhere respondent No.2 specifically deny the medical bills, except stating that Ex.A9 and A10 were obtained for higher amount. The Tribunal, following the said decisions, has rightly awarded the said amounts and held that in all, the claimants would be entitled for a compensation of Rs.11,91,128/-, which is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. This Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal granting the said compensation to the claimants 1 to 4.

¶71

Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal.

¶72

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶73

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶74

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶75

Date: 16.02.2026 KGR

The Apsrtc v. Penubadi Padmavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Apsrtc v. Penubadi Padmavathi

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

The Official Liquidator Vs Nil

The Official Liquidator Vs Nil

N Rajendra Prasad Vs Sri Suresh Kumar IAS

Apsrtc Vs Vada Minna

The Managing Director, Vs Yellavula Subbalakshmi

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Solasa Sujatha