Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Chakali Ramudu — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs Chakali Ramudu — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? +2 more

Court's answer

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Ratio / Principle

Endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus driver, founded on the eyewitness deposition of PW-2 coupled with Ex.A1 (FIR, Crime No.206 of 2021, K. Nagalapuram P.S.) and Ex.A5 (charge sheet in C.C.No.2202 of 2022); the finding needs no interference being well reasoned.

Key takeaways

On quantum, held that the total awarded compensation of Rs. 7,49,750/- (loss of dependency Rs.5,19,750/- after multiplier '7' for age 65, plus Rs. 15,000/- loss of estate, Rs.2,00,000/- consortium and Rs. 15,000/- funeral expenses, per the Tribunal's computation of notional income at Rs.300/- per day for 25 days a month with 25% deduction for four dependants) is neither excessive nor exorbitant; no interference warranted.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 455 of 2023 (APSRTC, Kurnool v. Chakali Ramudu & ors.) — dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Smt Justice V. Sujatha, 06.04.2026). The Court declined to interfere with the award and decree dated 28.12.2022 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.34 of 2022, whereby Rs.7,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum was granted to the claimants for the death of C. Somakka (aged about 65) in the accident of 27.11.2021 on the Kurnool-Kodumur road near Nerawada Bus Stop. On negligence, the Court found the Tribunal's conclusion — that the APSRTC bus AP 03 Z 0141 was driven rashly and negligently — well reasoned, resting on PW-2's eyewitness deposition, Ex.A1 FIR (Crime No.206 of 2021, K. Nagalapuram P.S.) and Ex.A5 charge sheet (C.C.No.2202 of 2022, Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool). On quantum, the Tribunal's computation (notional income Rs.300/- per day x 25 days = Rs.7,500/- per month; 25% deducted towards personal expenses for four dependants; multiplier '7' for age 65 giving dependency of Rs.5,19,750/-; plus Rs. 15,000/- loss of estate, Rs.2,00,000/- consortium and Rs. 15,000/- funeral expenses, totalling Rs. 7,49,750/-) was held to be neither excessive nor exorbitant. Pending miscellaneous applications closed.

1

APHC010388672023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3333]

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 455 OF 2023

Between:

ANDHRA PRADE S H STATE ROAD TRANSPORT C O RPORATION, KURNOOL, REP R ESENTED BY ITS REGIONA L MANAGER, KURNOOL APS R TC,BUS BEARING NO. A P . 03-Z-0141 YEMMIGANUR DE P OT, KURNOOL DIST

...APPELLANT

AND

CHAKALI RAMU D U, S/O LATE C.SUBANIA, HI N DU,AGED 68 YRS,CULTIVATIO N , R/O. H.NO.1/70, NERAWA D A VILLAGE, KALLUR MANDAL, K URNOOL DIST.

C PEDDA MINN E LLA, S/O C.RAMUDU,NINDU, A GED 40YRS, CULTIVATION, R /O. H.NO.1/70, NERAWADA VILL A GE. KALLUR MANDAL,KURNO O L DIST.

C CHINNA MIN N ELLA, S/O C.RAMUDU,HINDU, A GED 38YRS, CULTIVATION, R /O. H.NO.1/70, NERAWADA VILL A GE, KALLUR MANDAL,KURNO O L DIST.

C SUKANNA, S/O C . RAMUDU, AGED 38 YEARS,CUL T IVATION, R/O. H.NO.1/70, NERA W ADA VILLAGE, KALLUR MAN D AL,KURNOOL DIST.

C MEENA MEEN A MMA, D/O C.RAMUDU, W/O. C.R A MANA HINDU, AGED 31YEARS, COOLI, R/O. H.NO.1/70, NERAW A DA VILLAGE, KALLUR MANDAL, K URNOOL DIST

2

T CHINNA VENKATESWARULU, S/O T. RANGASWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YRS, DRIVER OF THE APSRTC BUS BEARING NO. AP-03-Z-0141, YEMMIGANUR DEPOT, YEMMIGANUR LOWN, KURNOOL DIST. (RESPONDENT NO. 6 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY)

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Appellant:

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.VARUN BYREDDY

The Court made the following Judgment :

The Appellant/ APSRTC filed the present Appeal challenging the order and decree 28.12.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.34 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- to the Respondents/ Claimants, as against the claim of 8,00,000/- for the death of one C. Somakka, (in short ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident that occurred on 27.11.2021.

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

The case of the Petitioner is briefly as follows:

On 27.11.2021 at 18.00 hrs on Kurnool to Kodumur road, near Nerawada Bus Stop, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District met with an accident

3

while crossing the road by carrying cotton bags on their heads. When they reached Nerawada Bus Stop, one APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 03 Z 0141 of Yemmiganur Depot driven by Respondent No.2 came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased and C. Thirupathamma. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe head injury and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where the doctors examined the deceased and declared her dead. The K. Nagalapuram Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 206 of 2021 against the Respondent No.2. Therefore, the Claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the Respondents.

Respondent No.1/ APSRTC filed counter inter alia contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 03 Z 0141. The alleged accident occurred as the deceased suddenly came on the road with a cotton bag on her head without noticing the bus, which was passing on the road.

Respondent No.2 filed counter inter alia contended that he is not responsible for the accident. Immediately after the accident, the Respondent No.2 went to Police Station and gave a report that the deceased was at fault and because of negligence of deceased only the accident occurred.

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

4

“a. Whether the deceased/ C.Somakka, met with the motor accident on 27.11.2021 at 18.00 hours on Kurnool – Kodumur road, near Nerawada Bus Stop, within the limits of K. Nagalapuram P.S, due to the negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 03 Z 0141 driven by the 2^nd respondent and died on the same day, due to the injuries sustained in the said accident?

b. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

c. To what relief?

On behalf of the Claimants, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1

to A6 were marked. On behalf of Respondents, none was examined and no document was marked.

After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against Respondent No.1, awarding compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and directed Respondent No.1 to deposit the said amount within a month from the date of the order.

Aggrieved by the said award, the Appellant/ APSRTC preferred this appeal on the ground that in the absence of any evidence to establish the fact that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.7,500/- for the age group of 65 years, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased instead of Rs.5,000/- per month and deducted 25% towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 50%. Further, the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC and the Police

5

falsely foisted a case and registered the case against the driver of the APSRTC without conducting any investigation. Therefore, requested this Court to allow the Appeal by dismissing the Award passed by the Tribunal.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein have supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?

POINT:

On perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal, it can be observed the Claimant No.1, being the husband of the deceased. The Claimant No.2 being the son of the deceased got examined as PW-1. PW-2 who is an eye witness to the said accident, who categorically deposed that on 27.11.2021 at 18.00 hrs, while he was returning from Kurnool to go to his house at Nerawada, he stopped at small hotel at bus stop, the deceased and one Thirupathamma were crossing road with cotton bags on their heads Kurnool – Kodumur road, near Nerawada Bus Stop, at that time, one APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 03 Z 0141 belonging to Yemmiganur Depot, proceeding from Kurnool and driver of the said bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased Somakka and C. Thirupathamma. As a result, the deceased Somakka fell down on the road and sustained severe grievous head injury and multiple injuries all over the body and she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where doctors declared her dead,

6

coupled with Ex.A1 i.e copy of the FIR in Crime No. 206 of 2021 of K. Nagalapuram P.S; Ex.A5 - C.C of Charge Sheet in C.C.No.2202 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool, which was filed after due investigation holding that due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.2, resulting death of the deceased. The Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus, which needs no interference as it is well reasoned.

Coming to the quantum of compensation, as per the evidence of PW-1, the deceased was aged about 65 years at the time of accident, who was doing coolie work and getting Rs. 400/- per day. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the earning of the deceased, the Tribunal fixed the wage of the deceased as Rs.300/- per day and assumed that the agricultural coolies do the said work for 25 days in a month. If the same is taking into consideration the monthly income would be Rs. 7,500/- (Rs. 300/- x 25) and yearly income would come to Rs. 90,000/- (Rs. 7,500/- x 12).

As there are four dependants in the instant case, 25% of his income would be deducted towards his personal expenses, if the same is deducted, the annual loss of dependency would be to Rs. 74,250/-. The age of the deceased was 65 years at the time of accident, after applying appropriate multiplier ‘7’ for the age group of 65 years, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,19,750/- (Rs. 74,250/- x 7). Apart from the same, the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate; Rs.2,00,000/towards consortium for the Claimants and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral

7

expenses. In total, awarded compensation is Rs. 7,49,750/-, which in the opinion of this Court is neither excessive nor exorbitant. As such, this Court

needs no interference as it is well reasoned.

Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date: 06.04.2026 KK