Apsrtc Vs K Bharathi

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toTO SET ASIDE ORDER AND DECREE DT 22-03-2021 PASSED IN MVOP .NO.390/2018 ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL.DISTRICT AND

¶21

2

¶22

VS,J MACMA No.418 of 2021

¶23

SESSIONS COURT CUM SPL.COURT FOR TRAIL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN CUM VIII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE CLAIMPETITION

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶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 TO GRANT STAY OF OPERATION OF ORDER AND DECREE DT 22-032021 IN MVOP NO.390/2018 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED VIII ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT CUMSPL COURT FOR TRAIL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN CUM VIII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM SEEKING COMPENSATION OF 10,00,000/-

¶26

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶27

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 vacate the interim stay granted on 9-08-2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in MACMA No.418 of 2021 on the file of this Hon'ble Court by permitting the Petitioners to withdraw the amount deposited by the Respondent/APSRTC herein and pass such other order or

¶28

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶29

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 vacate the interim stay granted on 9-08-2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in MACMA No.418 of 2021 on the file of this Hon'ble Court by permitting the Petitioners no.1,2&5 to withdraw the amount deposited by the Respondent/APSRTC herein and pass

¶30

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶31

1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.HARINATH REDDY SOMA

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

3

¶36

VS,J MACMA No.418 of 2021

¶37

JUDGMENT:

¶38

The APSRTC filed the present appeal challenging the order and decree dated 22.03.2021 passed in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2018 by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Offences against Women-cum-VIII Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,55,924/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Four only) to the petitioners/respondents No.1 to 4 herein, as per their claim, on account of the death of the deceased Kondeti Raju in a motor accident that occurred on 04.10.2018.

¶39

1^st Respondent herein is the driver of the offending vehicle of the 2^nd Respondent and 2^nd Respondent is the appellant/APSRTC before the Tribunal.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

On 04.10.2018 at about 07:30 p.m., the deceased Kondeti Raju was traveling in auto rickshaw No. AP 05 TN 0913 near Kapavaram village. APSRTC bus No.AP 07 Z 0166, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, dashed against the auto. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and died the same day at Government General Hospital, Rajamahendravaram.

¶43

4

¶44

VS,J MACMA No.418 of 2021

¶45

The accident occurred solely due to respondent No.1’s negligent driving, and a case was registered under Section 304‑A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860¹ .

¶46

The petitioners contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 45 years at the time of the accident, and but for his premature death he would have lived his full span of life. The deceased was the owner‑cum‑driver of auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 05 TN 0913 and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, which he devoted entirely to the maintenance of his family. Petitioner No.1, the wife, is suffering from loss of consortium; petitioners 2 to 4, the children, are suffering from loss of parental care and guidance; and petitioner No.5 is suffering from loss of love and affection. The petitioners also incurred Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and the auto rickshaw was completely damaged. Hence, they sought just compensation from the respondents. Hence, they sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents.

¶47

The 2^nd respondent/APSRTC denies the allegations regarding date, time, place, and manner of accident and puts petitioners. It is contended that on 04.10.2018, bus No. AP 07 Z 1656 was driven slowly, carefully, and on the extreme left side near Kapavaram village. The deceased, driving auto No.AP 05 TN 0913, came rashly at high speed, without horn, attempted to overtake a bike, and dashed into the bus. Hence, there was no rash or negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. This respondent denies petitioners’ claims of

¶48

1 ‘the I.P.C.,’

¶49

5

¶50

VS,J MACMA No.418 of 2021

¶51

funeral expenses, loss of estate, dependency, consortium, and damages to the auto. It further contended that the owner and insurer of the auto are necessary parties and that the petition is bad for non-joinder. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶52

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

¶53

“1. Whether on 04-10-2018 at about 07-30 P.M., 1^st respondent driver drove the RTC bus bearing No.AP 07 Z 0166 in a rash and negligent manner and at high-speed and when it was reached the place of accident near Teluvarikurudu outskirts of Kapavaram village and dashed against deceased Kondeti Raju, who drove the auto bearing No.AP 05 TN 0913 and if so, whether he received severe injuries and died due to the injuries received in the accident?

¶54

2. Whether on 04-10-2018 the 1st respondent as a driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 07 Z 0166 started at Gokavaram to go to Rajahmundry by driving the bus very slowly, carefully and on the extreme left side of the road and came near Telivarikurudu of Kapavaram village about the 06-50 P.M., and by that time the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 05 TN 0913 driving by the deceased -Kondeti Raju in a rash and negligent manner, in a high speed without blowing horn came in opposite direction and tried to overtake a bike which is going in front of the auto and carne on wrong side and on observing the auto the 1st respondent applied sudden breaks and stopped bus and whether the deceased driver of the auto unable to control the speed of the auto and dashed on the right side bumper of the bus and whether the above accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased driver of auto bearing No.AP 05 TN 0913?

¶55

3. Whether there is no rashness or negligent driving on the part of the 1^st respondent driver?”

¶56

6

¶57

VS,J MACMA No.418 of 2021

¶58

4. Whether the petitioners incurred Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses?

¶59

5. Whether the claim of petitioners that Rs.25.000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.8,60,000/- towards loss of dependency and Rs.50.000/- towards consortium are entitled by them as prayed for?

¶60

6. Whether the petitioners are entitled for Rs.40.000/- towards damages to the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 05 TN 0913?

¶61

7. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties i.e., impleading insurer of the auto bearing No.AP 05 TN 0913?

¶62

8. Whether the petitioners are entitled for their claim as prayed for, If so, to what extent and against whom?

¶63

9. To what relief?

¶64

On behalf of the petitioners/claimants, P.W.s 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.194 of 2018 of Station House Officer, Korukonda Police Station; Ex.A2 is the attested copy of inquest report; Ex.A3 is the attested copy of report of postmortem report; Ex.A4 is the attested copy of MVI report and Ex.A5 is the attested copy of charge sheet along with memo of evidence in Cr.No.194 of 2018 of Korukonda Police Station. The 1^st respondent /driver of bus bearing No.AP 07 Z 0166 examined himself as RW.1. No documents were marked on behalf of the respondents.

¶65

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition with interest and costs against respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.12,55,924/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till

¶66

7

¶67

VS,J MACMA No.418 of 2021

¶68

realization. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of the order along with interest. On such deposit, out of the total compensation awarded as above, Rs.5,50,000/including consortium of Rs.50,000/- shall be allotted to the 1^st petitioner, out of which the 1^st petitioner can get release of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate costs and accrued interest thereon and the remaining amount of Rs.2,50,000/shall be put in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for one year. Out of the remaining amount in total compensation, the 2^nd petitioner shall be allotted Rs.1,50,000/- and the said Rs.1,50,000/- with costs and interest thereon get release to the 2^nd petitioner and the 3^rd and 4^th petitioners shall be allotted to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each and upon it, the same shall be deposited in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank till they attain majority. On attaining majority, the 3^rd and 4^th petitioners shall get release of the such amount and the remaining amount of Rs.1,55,924/- shall be allotted to the 5^th petitioner's share and she can get release of the same along with costs and accrued interest.

¶69

Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/APSRTC preferred this appeal contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased auto driver and thus there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have noticed that the claimants did not file any documentary evidence to show that the deceased was an auto driver and owner. Without any documentary evidence, the tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.8,340/- per month is

¶70

8

¶71

VS,J MACMA No.418 of 2021

¶72

erroneous and on the higher side. The Tribunal awarded excessive amounts on various heads besides future prospects of 10% is erroneous in the absence of proof of income of the deceased. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal.

¶73

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/APSRTC and Mr.Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the claimants.

¶74

Now the point for consideration is:

¶75

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶76

POINT:

¶77

The Tribunal relying upon the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 as well as Exs.A1 to A6 came to a conclusion that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligence driving of the offending vehicle by the 1^st respondent on 04.10.2018. Ex.A1- attested copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A5- certified copy of charge sheet also support the same. Though respondent No.1-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 took place due to the negligence on the part of the deceased auto driver, the fact remains that he did not file written statement. Even otherwise, the self-serving statement of the driver cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. In view of the above reasons, it is clear that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the

¶78

9

¶79

VS,J MACMA No.418 of 2021

¶80

APSRTC bus only. The finding of the Tribunal to that effect needs no interference.

¶81

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as an owner-cum-driver of an auto rickshaw, they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the actual earnings of the deceased. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal relied upon the proceedings issued by the District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada for the year 2013–14, wherein the wages of skilled and unskilled labour were notified. As per the said proceedings, the deceased, being a driver, was treated as an unskilled laborer and the daily wage was fixed at Rs.278/- per day. Accordingly, the monthly income was assessed at Rs.8,340/- (Rs.278 x 30 days), which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is just and proper. Following the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation² , where the number of dependents is four, 1/4^th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. In the present case, the monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.8,340/. After deducting 1/4^th i.e., Rs.2,085/- towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.6,255/- per month. Thus, the annual contribution to the dependents comes to Rs.75,060/(Rs.6,255 x 12). Applying the relevant multiplier ‘14’ to the age of the deceased, which was 45 years as per Ex.A2/inquest report and Ex.A3/P.M.

¶82

2 2009 ACJ 1298

¶83

10

¶84

VS,J MACMA No.418 of 2021

¶85

report is ‘14’, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.10,50,840/- (Rs.75,060/- x 14) towards loss of dependency. In addition thereto, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the conventional heads i.e., Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has also added Rs.1,05,084/- towards future prospects (Rs.10,50,840/- + 10%). Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioners comes to Rs.12,80,924/-. However, the Tribunal erroneously calculated the total compensation as Rs.12,55,924/- instead of Rs.12,80,924/-.

¶86

Therefore, the correct total compensation payable to the petitioners is Rs.12,80,924/-, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and cannot be said to be excessive or on the higher side and requires no interference in this civil miscellaneous appeal. The excess amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.12,80,924 – Rs.12,55,924) shall be awarded to the 5^th petitioner/mother of the deceased, and she is entitled to withdraw the same. The Tribunal is directed to entertain the same upon an appropriate application. Accordingly, t he point is answered.

¶87

In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs.

¶88

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶89

___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶90

Date: 17.02.2026 KGR

Apsrtc v. K Bharathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsrtc v. K Bharathi

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 Apsrtc Vs Penubadi Padmavathi

Apsrtc Vs Vada Minna

The Managing Director, Vs Yellavula Subbalakshmi

Chola Mandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Vs Pattela Uma Devi @ Yadlapalli Uma Devi

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Kunta Rambabu

Mulagada Rama Lakshmi Vs SeelaEswara Rao