Apsrtc Vs Vada Minna — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Apsrtc Vs Vada Minna — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants (APSRTC); the impugned Tribunal award of Rs.2,05,000/- with 9% per annum interest stands undisturbed; appeal dismissed with no costs and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference (the point framed for consideration by this Court). +2 more

Court's answer

Viewed from any angle, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus (No. AP 35 Z 0060) by Respondent No.1 is sound - resting on the categorical eyewitness deposition of PW-2 coupled with Ex.A1 (true copy of FIR) and Ex.A5 (true copy of charge sheet disclosing registration of Crime No. 125 of 2018 under Section 304-A of IPC after due investigation) - and no interference is warranted with that finding.

Key takeaways

The quantum awarded by the Tribunal to Claimants Nos.1 and 5 is just and proper: with no documentary proof of the contended Rs.300/- per-day earnings (only oral testimony of PW-1), notional income of Rs.100/- per day (Rs.3,000/- per month; Rs.36,000/- per annum) was correctly adopted in light of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandran v. Mukesh Kumar; deducting 1/4th personal expenses leaves Rs.27,000/- per annum; the multiplier of 5 for the deceased's age of 70 years per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and the heads per National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi were correctly applied; the total of Rs.2,05,000/- cannot be said to be excessive or on the higher side, and this Court finds no error in the Tribunal's order granting it.ratio¶52
The Tribunal, following the said Apex Court decisions, rightly awarded the component amounts to Claimants Nos.1 and 5 - Rs.1,35,000/- towards dependency/future income, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, totalling Rs.2,05,000/-.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.517 of 2022 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Justice V.Sujatha, 16.02.2026) by APSRTC (Depot Manager, Parvathipuram Depot; Managing Director, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada) against the order and decree dated 15.07.2022 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram in M.V.O.P.No.18 of 2019 - DISMISSED with no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed. The Tribunal had partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs.2,05,000/- (as against Rs.5,00,000/- claimed) with 9% per annum interest to Claimants Nos.1 and 5, jointly and severally recoverable from Tribunal respondent Nos.2 and 3 (APSRTC), for the death of Vada Adamma (aged 70), crushed by RTC bus No. AP 35 Z 0060 driven rashly and negligently at Thotapalli Devasthanam on 02.12.2018 (Crime No. 125 of 2018 under Section 304-A of IPC; Ex.A1 FIR; Ex.A5 charge sheet; eyewitness PW-2); the claim of Tribunal Petitioners 2 to 4 stood dismissed. Considering the matter 'in entirety', the High Court sustained the Tribunal's negligence finding - no interference warranted - and upheld the quantum as just and proper, not excessive or on the higher side: notional income Rs.100/- per day (Rs.3,000/- per month; Rs.36,000/- per annum) adopted in the absence of documents for the contended Rs.300/- per-day earnings (per Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandran v. Mukesh Kumar, 2021(6) ALT 116 (SC)); 1/4th deducted as personal expenses leaving Rs.27,000/- p.a.; multiplier 5 for age 70 per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298); component heads per National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi - dependency/future income Rs.1,35,000/-, loss of estate Rs.15,000/-, consortium Rs.40,000/-, funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-.

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference (the point framed for consideration by this Court).¶46
The court held
Viewed from any angle, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the award impugned in the appeal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.ratio¶53
2.
Whether the accident resulting in the death of Vada Adamma occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 35 Z 0060 by its driver (the Tribunal's finding on this, challenged in the appeal, fell to be sustained or upset).medium confidence¶48
The court held
The Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus (No. AP 35 Z 0060) by Respondent No.1 is sound - resting on the categorical eyewitness deposition of PW-2 coupled with Ex.A1 (true copy of FIR) and Ex.A5 (true copy of charge sheet disclosing registration of Crime No. 125 of 2018 under Section 304-A of IPC after due investigation) - and no interference is warranted with that finding.ratio¶48
3.
Whether the compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Claimants Nos.1 and 5 is just and proper or excessive/on the higher side.medium confidence¶52
The court held
The quantum awarded by the Tribunal to Claimants Nos.1 and 5 is just and proper: with no documentary proof of the contended Rs.300/- per-day earnings (only oral testimony of PW-1), notional income of Rs.100/- per day (Rs.3,000/- per month; Rs.36,000/- per annum) was correctly adopted in light of Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandran v. Mukesh Kumar; deducting 1/4th personal expenses leaves Rs.27,000/- per annum; the multiplier of 5 for the deceased's age of 70 years per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and the heads per National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi were correctly applied; the total of Rs.2,05,000/- cannot be said to be excessive or on the higher side, and this Court finds no error in the Tribunal's order granting it.ratio¶52

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order and decree dated 15.07.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.18 of 2019: Tribunal partly allowed the claim, awarding Rs.2,05,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, respondents Nos.2 and 3 (APSRTC) jointly and severally liable to pay within two months; the claim in respect of Tribunal Petitioners 2 to 4 dismissed.¶26
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Parvathipuram · 15.07.2022
Prior proceeding
Accident of 02.12.2018 at about 18.15 hrs at Thotapalli Devasthanam: while the deceased Vada Adamma was crossing the road on foot to go to Venkateswara Temple for begging, Respondent No.1 drove the RTC bus (No. AP 35 Z 0060) rashly and negligently at high speed without blowing horn and dashed against her; she was crushed and died on the spot, and the police registered a case.¶31
Prior proceeding
On the death of the deceased in the motor accident, the claimants (her mother-in-law relationship group: daughter-in-law Petitioner No.1, grandsons Petitioners Nos.2-4 and daughter Petitioner No.5) filed the claim petition seeking Rs.5,00,000/-.¶31
Prior proceeding
Before the Tribunal, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statements denying material averments, contending there was no rash and negligent driving by Respondent No.1 and that the compensation claimed was excessive; they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.¶32
Prior proceeding
Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues for trial: (1) rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver R.1 causing the fatal accident; (2) entitlement of the petitioners to compensation, quantum and from whom; (3) relief.¶35
Prior proceeding
Evidence at trial: for the Petitioners/Claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 marked; for the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no document was marked.¶39
Prior proceeding
After hearing both sides and considering oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition against respondent Nos.2 and 3, awarding Rs.2,05,000/- with 9% per annum interest, holding them jointly and severally liable within two months; the claim of Petitioners 2 to 4 was dismissed.¶41
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the award, APSRTC (Tribunal respondent Nos.2 and 3) preferred this appeal contending: negligence by the RTC driver was not established; the deceased herself dashed against the bus; contributory negligence by the 70-year-old deceased who was dependent on her grandsons; and compensation was granted to Petitioners 1 and 5 without any Legal Representatives Certificate.¶42