Dismissed

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Dandlamudi Venkateswar Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jul 2026MACMA/479/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeal by APSRTC against compensation of Rs.7,91,000 for death of a 26-year-old motorcyclist hit by its bus. The High Court upheld negligence findings, reassessed income as minimum wages of Rs.9,000 per month with 40% future prospects and multiplier 17, enhancing compensation to Rs.13,62,200.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.7,91,000 to Rs.13,62,200, apportioned among claimants as by the Tribunal; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

VS,J MACMA_479 of 2022

¶3

Date of reserved for orders :

¶4

Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading :

¶5

APHC010613232022

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶7

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶8

[3333]

¶9

THURSDAY, THE 9^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶12

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 479/2022

¶13

Between:

¶14

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS STATION COMPLEX, GUNTUR.

¶15

...APPELLANT

¶16

AND

¶17

DANDLAMUDI VENKATESWAR RAO, S/O NAGBHUSHANAM, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O PERECHARLA VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶18

DANDLAMUDI LAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O PERECHARLA VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶19

SHAIK SAIDA, S/O JANI BASHA, OCC. DRIVER, AGED MAJOR, R/O 3-7-23/63, BURAMPET, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO.3 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY)

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

¶22

VS,J MACMA_479 of 2022

¶23

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtpleased to set aside Decree and Award dated 20.04.2022 passed in M.V.O.P No. 775 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur and consequently dismiss the claim Petition and pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 pleased to condone the delay of 85 days in filing the appeal against M.V.O.P No. 775 02017, dated 20.04.2022 on the file of Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- III Additional District Judge, Guntur and to pass

¶26

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶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 to grant stay of opertaion of Decree and Award dated 20.09922 passed in M.V.O.P No. 775 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Additional District Judge, Guntur and pass

¶28

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 to permit the petitioners herein i.e.. Respondents No.1 and 2 in IA.No.2 of 2022 in MACMA.No.479 of 2022, dt.15-11-2022 to withdraw the amount deposited by the Appellant/APSRTC along with costs and to pass

¶30

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶31

1.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

¶36

VS,J MACMA_479 of 2022

¶37

JUDGMENT:-

¶38

This appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent No.1 – APSRTC, challenging the award dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.775 of 2017, whereby, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,91,000/-.

¶39

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

¶40

The petitioners are father and mother of one Dandlamudi Bosu Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The 1^st respondent is the owner and the 2^nd respondent is the driver of the bus bearing NO.AP-07Z-0100 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’). On 04.05.2017, at about 02.15 p.m., the deceased and his friend by name Boyapati Naga Bhusanam went to Guntur on the motorcycle bearing No.AP-07-CU-8990 and when they reached Ettu road, as an unknown auto came in front of their motorcycle, the deceased had to apply sudden breaks, meanwhile, the crime vehicle being driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle due to which, the deceased and his friend fell down and the deceased was run over by the crime vehicle, resulting in his death. A case was registered by the Police in Crime No.93 of 2017 on the file of Guntur Urban Traffic Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 304(A), 337 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased is aged about 26 years and used to earn Rs.18,000/- by driving a tractor and cultivation. Seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the accidental death of the deceased, the petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal.

¶41

¶42

VS,J MACMA_479 of 2022

¶43

The 1^st respondent contested the said claim by filing a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; it is further contended that the deceased drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner; that there is no negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent; that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant.

¶44

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

¶45

1) Whether Dandlamudi Bosu Babu died in the road accident occurred on 4.5.20147 at about 14.15 hours near Mastan Darga, Ettu road, Guntur town due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 07 Z 0100?

¶46

2) Whether the petitioners is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount, and against whom?

¶47

3) To what relief?

¶48

During the course of hearing, the 2^nd petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and one Boyapatik Nagabhushanam was examined as P.W.2; the petitioners got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents, the 2^nd respondent was examined as R.W.1., but no documentary evidence was marked on their behalf.

¶49

The Tribunal, after considering all the facts and material available before it, awarded Rs.7,91,000/- to the petitioners by making both the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay. Aggrieved by the same, the 1^st respondent filed the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-without any documentary evidence; that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

¶50

¶51

VS,J MACMA_479 of 2022

¶52

Heard Mr. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri. A. Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶53

Perused the entire material available on record. To prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner No.2 got examined herself as P.W.1 and deposed with regard to nature of the accident and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. The friend of the deceased, who was pillion rider of the motorcycle on the date of accident was examined as P.W.2; he deposed that on the date of accident, while they were returning after having lunch at Subhani hotel, an auto came suddenly in their way due to which, the deceased had to apply brakes; at that juncture, the 2^nd respondent drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and hit the motorcycle as a result of which the deceased fell down and was run over by the crime vehicle. Ex.A1 is a copy of FIR filed against the 2^nd respondent and Ex.A6 is the charge sheet filed by the Police after conducting enquiry against the 2^nd respondent. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 and A6 has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 2^nd respondent and the same need not again be looked into.

¶54

Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, in the absence of any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by driving tractor and doing cultivation works as claimed by the petitioners, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-; as the deceased was unmarried, 50% of the monthly income was deducted towards his personal expenses [Rs.5,000/X 50%] and accordingly, his monthly income becomes Rs.2,500/-.

¶55

¶56

VS,J MACMA_479 of 2022

¶57

Further, as the deceased was self employed, 40% of the monthly income was added towards future prospects as per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ and thus, the monthly income of the deceased along with future prospects would be Rs.3,500/- [Rs.2,500/- + RS.1,000/-] and thus the annual income would become Rs.42,000/[Rs.3,500/- X 12]. As the deceased was aged about 26 years as on the date of accident, the relevant multiplier as per Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another² is ’17’ and the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.7,14,000/- [Rs.42,000/- X 17]. In addition, the Tribunal has award Rs.77,000/- i.e., under the head of loss of estate (Rs.16,500/-), loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/-) and towards funeral expenses (Rs.16,500/-). In total, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,91,000/- to the petitioners and directed the respondents to pay the same to the petitioners.

¶58

Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants seriously objected the award on the ground that though it is the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per month by driving tractor and also doing cultivation, in the absence of any evidence to that extent, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. It is pertinent to mention here that when there is no documentary proof to establish the income of the deceased, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that minimum wages payable as on the date of accident has to be taken into consideration. In the present case, as the accident occurred in the year 2017, the wages payable to an unskilled labour like the deceased is Rs.300/- per day, which amounts to Rs.9,000/- per month. After deducting 50% of the income towards his personal expenses, the

¶59

1 (2017) 16 SCC 680

¶60

2AIR 2009 SCC3104

¶61

¶62

VS,J MACMA_479 of 2022

¶63

income would come to Rs.4,500/-; adding 40% towards future prospects, the amount would compute to Rs.6,300/- [Rs.4,500/- + 40% of Rs.4,500/-] per month. After applying appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another , to the age group of ‘26’, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. Rs.12,85,200/[Rs.6,300/- X 12 X ‘17’]. As such, the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.12,85,200/- under the head of loss of dependency. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and toward funeral expense to a tune of Rs.77,000/- need not be altered. Hence, the petitioners are to be paid Rs.13,62,200/-for the accidental death of their son.

¶64

In view of the foregoing discussion, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads and amounts would now become as under:

¶65

S. No	Head of the claim	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal in Rs.	Amounts now altered by this Court
1.	Loss of dependency	Rs.7,14,000/-	Rs.12,85,200/-
2.	Funeral Charges	Rs.16,500/-	Rs.16,500/-
3.	Loss of estate	Rs.16,500/-	Rs.16,500/-
4.	Loss of Consortium for claimants	Rs.40,000/-	Rs.40,000/-
	Total	Rs.7,91,000/-	Rs.13,62,000/-

¶66

Further, though the present appeal has been preferred by the APSRTC (appellant), this Court is empowered to enhance the compensation, even in the absence of any cross-objections filed by the

¶67

¶68

VS,J MACMA_479 of 2022

¶69

claim petitioners, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surekha Vs. Santosh³ .

¶70

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by way of the impugned award dated 20.04.2022 is enhanced from Rs.7,91,000/- to Rs.13,62,200/-. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned amongst the claim petitioners in the same ratio as was apportioned by the Tribunal. No costs.

¶71

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶72

___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶73

Date:09.07.2026.

¶74

Gss

¶75

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes Reportable No

¶76

3SCC OnLine SC 1312

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Dandlamudi Venkateswar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Dandlamudi Venkateswar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alva Chandrasekhar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Tatina Vijaya Bharathi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Y. Jaganadha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Subhashini, Vs State represented by Superintendent of Police

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Damarusingu Ramana

Dhulipalla Venkata Sundeep Vs Dhulipalla Talasila Yamini Satya