Dismissed¶¶77

The Depot Manager v. Sare Demudamma

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Feb 2026MACMA/726/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court, Amaravati - MACMA No.726/2023, V. Sujatha J., decided 03.02.2026. Appeal by APSRTC (Depot Manager, Paderu Depot and Managing Director) against MACT Anakapalli award in MVOP No.75/2016 (S.166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) for the death of Sare Appa Rao in the accident of 21.12.2013 caused by APSRTC bus AP-28-Z-2604. Negligence upheld on P.W.1, P.W.2 and Exs.A.1-A.5; quantum upheld: income Rs.6,000 p.m., age 30, 40% future prospects (Pranay Sethi, 2018 ACJ 2782), multiplier 17 (Sarla Verma, 2009 ACJ 1298), assessed Rs.13,55,200 restricted to claim of Rs.7,00,000 with 7.5% p.a. interest; appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; appeal dismissed with no costs and the Tribunal's award of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest stands; pending miscellaneous applications closed. ¶¶77

The Depot Manager Vs Sare Demudamma — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; appeal dismissed with no costs and the Tribunal's award of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest stands; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the deceased SareApparao died in a motor accident took place at about 7.00 P.M on 21.12.2023 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28 Z-2604? (as framed by the Tribunal; date as printed) +3 more

¶¶49

Court's answer

The Tribunal's finding that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-2604 by respondent No.1 - founded on the evidence of P.W.1 (wife) and P.W.2 (eyewitness) coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.5, in the absence of rebuttal evidence from respondents No.2 and 3 - is neither illegal nor arbitrary.

¶¶76

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of documentary evidence, the monthly income of the deceased fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month (which is even below the Rs.250/- per day wage under the Minimum Wages Act, the Tribunal having taken only Rs.200/- per day) is not excessive, and the age of 30 years shown in Exs.A.2 (postmortem report) and A.3 (inquest report) is not wrong.

¶¶67

Key takeaways

The quantum was correctly computed: with 40% of income added towards future prospects as per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi, 1/4th deducted for personal expenses (5 dependents), and multiplier 17 applied for the age group 25-30 years as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, the loss of dependency is Rs.12,85,200/-, to which conventional amounts (Rs.40,000/- consortium, Rs.15,000/- loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- funeral) were added, totalling Rs.13,55,200/-, rightly restricted to the Rs.7,00,000/- claimed by the petitioners.ratio¶¶70
The Motor Accident Claim Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with no costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.ratio¶¶77

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor accident death claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - APSRTC appeal against award of Rs.7,00,000/- (assessed at Rs.13,55,200/- but restricted to the amount claimed) by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli, in MVOP No.75 of 2016, to the widow, two children and parents of Sare Appa Rao (mason, aged 30, income Rs.6,000/- per month), who died on 21.12.2013 after being hit by an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-2604: HELD, the evidence of the claimant-wife as P.W.1 and the eyewitness as P.W.2, coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.5 (FIR, postmortem certificate, inquest report, MVI report, charge sheet) and unrebutted by respondents No.2 and 3, established death due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver; the monthly income of Rs.6,000/- (below even the Rs.250/- per day minimum wage) is not excessive and the age of 30 years per Exs.A.2 and A.3 is not wrong; adding 40% towards future prospects as per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (2018 ACJ 2782), deducting 1/4th for personal expenses and applying multiplier 17 as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298), loss of dependency is Rs.12,85,200/-, plus Rs.40,000/- consortium, Rs.15,000/- loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- funeral expenditure, totalling Rs.13,55,200/-, rightly restricted to the Rs.7,00,000/- claimed; the Tribunal's finding is neither illegal nor arbitrary. Appeal dismissed with no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

¶1

¶2

MACMA NO. 726 / 2023 VS,J.

¶3

APHC010545112023

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

[3333]

¶7

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶10

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 726/2023

¶11

Between:

¶12

THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, PADERU DEPOT, PADERU.

¶13

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,APSRTC, RTC X ROADS, SECUNDERABAD, NOW AT PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA.

¶14

...APPELLANT(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

SARE DEMUDAMMA, W/O LATE APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GANIKA VILLAGE IN HUKUMPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶17

SARE POTHU RAJU, S/O LATE APPA RAO, AGED ABOTIT 14 YEARS, R/O GANIKA VILLAGE IN HUKUMPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶18

SARE SHIREESHA, D/O LATE APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, R/O GANIKA VILLAGE IN HUKUMPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶19

SARE THOWDAYYA TADAYYA, S/O LAXMANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O GANIKA VILLAGE IN HUKUMPETA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶20

¶21

MACMA NO. 726 / 2023 VS,J.

¶22

SARE GANGAMMA, W/O TADAYYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O GANIKA VILLAGE IN HUKUMPETA MANDAL,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND FRIEND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT SARE DEMUDAMMA)

¶23

GUNDU SURI BABU, S/O SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, DRIVER, APSRTC, PADERU DEPOT, PADERU, RESIDENT OF SABBAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM. (6TH RESPONDENT NOT NECESSARY PARTY)

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶26

1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

¶31

MACMA NO. 726 / 2023 VS,J.

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶33

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 726/2023

¶34

J U D G M E N T:

¶35

1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short APSRTC) challenging the Order and Decree dated 21.01.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.75 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –cum- X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli, awarding compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/-.

¶36

For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellants as Respondents No.2 and 3, Respondents No.1 to 5 as Petitioners and Respondent No.6 as 1^st Respondent.

¶37

2. The 1^st petitioner being wife, 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners being children, and 4^th , 5^th Petitioners being parents of Late.Appa Rao (hereinafter referred to as the „deceased‟), filed MVOP No.75 of 2016 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of Late. Appa Rao in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.12.2013.

¶38

¶39

MACMA NO. 726 / 2023 VS,J.

¶40

3. The brief averments of the petition in MVOP No.75 of 2016 are that – The deceased SareAppa Rao was aged 30 years, hale and health, he was a mason by profession and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month, he was the sole breadwinner of the entire family, petitioners 1 to 5 are the dependents on the deceased at the time of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

¶41

i. On 21.12.2013 at about 7.00 P.M, the deceased SareAppa Rao went to HukumpetaShandy and after completion of work he was returning back to his village by walk on state highway road near Hukumpeta village andwhen he was attending nature call by the side of the road, at that time, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-2604 came in opposite direction from Araku village, driven in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, by the 1^st respondent - driver and dashed against the deceased, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries and while shifting to the Government Hospital, Paderu the deceased died on the way. In this regard, the Hukumpeta Police registered a case in Cr.No.63/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the I.P.C., against 1^st Respondent. Due to sudden death of the deceased, at the age of 30 years, the petitioners have lost his love and affection and also their livelihood.

¶42

ii. The 1^st respondent being driver and 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents being owners of the offending vehicle are jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

¶43

¶44

MACMA NO. 726 / 2023 VS,J.

¶45

Hence, they filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- in total from the respondents.

¶46

4. After receiving notices, the 1^st respondent remained ex-parte.

¶47

5. The respondents No.2 and 3 filed common counter denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that all the allegations made in the petition are invented for the purpose of getting compensation. The Hukumpeta Police registered the case without having complete knowledge of the facts of the incident. The 1^st respondent driver has driven the vehicle as per rules and was holding valid and effective driving license. The petitioners have claimed excess rate of interest at the rate of 18%, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to claim such interest and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

¶48

6. On perusal of pleadings of both sides, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal.

¶49

1. Whether the deceased SareApparao died in a motor accident took place at about 7.00 P.M on 21.12.2023 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28 Z-2604?

¶50

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled compensation as prayed for? And

¶51

1. To what relief?

¶52

¶53

MACMA NO. 726 / 2023 VS,J.

¶54

7. During the course of enquiry, the 1^st petitioner – SareDemudamma, who is wife of the deceased got examined as P.W.1, one eyewitness to the incident by name Vemala Sudhakar got examined as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1- attested copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2 – attested copy of postmortem certificate, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.4 – attested copy of Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, Ex.A.5 – attested copy of charge sheet.

¶55

On behalf of respondents – 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, 1^st respondent by name G.Suri Babu got examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked.

¶56

8. On hearing both sides, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.13,55,200 but restricted to Rs.7,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants, together with costs and interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directed Respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to deposit the compensation amount within one (01) month.

¶57

9. Being aggrieved by the said Order and decree, the 2^nd Respondent being the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Paderu Depot, Paderu and 3^rd Respondent being the Managing Director, APSRTC, have preferred the present appeal, on the following grounds – that the compensation awarded under future prospects is excessive, there is no documentary proof to prove the age of the deceased as 30 years and income of the deceased as Mason is Rs.6,000/- per month, but the

¶58

¶59

MACMA NO. 726 / 2023 VS,J.

¶60

Court below considered the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month hence, the compensation is unreasonable and without there being any base. The interest awarded at the rate of 7.5% per annum is excessive and abnormal. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and deposed that he has driven the vehicle slowly and there was no negligence on his part, therefore, the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. Hence, prayed to set aside the Order and Decree dated 31.01.2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.75 of 2016 by the Chairman, MACT –cum- IV additional District Judge, Chodavaram.

¶61

10. Heard both sides, perused the material in record.

¶62

11. Now the point for determination is – Whether the Order/Award passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

¶63

12. POINT: On perusal of the award, it can be observed that in support of the case of the claimants, claimant No.1 being the wife of the deceased got examined herself as P.W.1 who narrated about the manner of accident as stated in the claim petition and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. She also got examined P.W.2, who is the eyewitness to the said incident, who also corroborated the version of P.W.1 and categorically stated that he has witnessed the accident, the offending vehicle was driven by 1^st respondent – driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, without blowing horn, as a result of whih, the accident

¶64

¶65

MACMA NO. 726 / 2023 VS,J.

¶66

had occurred, causing death of the deceased. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 – attested copy of F.I.R, Ex.A.2 – attested copy of Postmortem certificate, Ex.A.3 – attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A.4 – attested copy of M.V.I Report, Ex.A.5 – attested copy of charge sheet, in the absence of rebuttal evidence from respondents No.2 and 3, the Tribunal held that on 21.12.2013 at 07.00 p.m. the deceased met with accident, sustained fatal injuries and died while shifting to the hospital, due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-2604 by respondent No.1.

¶67

13. Now coming to the income and age fixed by the tribunal, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, as the accident took place in the year 2013. This Court is of the opinion that even under the Minimum Wages Act, a worker is entitled for Rs.250/- per day as his wage. However, the Tribunal has considered to the extent of Rs.200/per day only. On the other hand, in Ex.A.2- attested copy of postmortem examination report and Ex.A.3 – attested copy of inquest report, the age of the deceased mentioned as 30 years, the Tribunal has came to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 30 years. So, in such case, in the absence of any documentary evidence, the Court has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which is not excessive and age of the deceased as 30 years is not wrong.

¶68

¶69

MACMA NO. 726 / 2023 VS,J.

¶70

14. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the age of the deceased is 30 years as on the date of accident, he is entitled for an additional amount of 40% of his income towards his future prospects as held by the Apex Court in “ National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi¹ ”, as such the monthly income of the deceased would come to (Rs.6,000 + 40% i.e.,2,400 =) Rs.8,400/- i.e., (8,400 x 12 =) Rs.1,00,800/- per annum. As there are 5 dependents in the present case, 1/4^th has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After deducting 1/4^th , the monthly income of the deceased would come to (Rs.1,00,800 – 25,200 = ) Rs.75,600/-. After applying the appropriate multiplier i.e. 17 for the age group of 25 – 30 years, as per the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in “ Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation² ”, the loss of dependency would come to (Rs.75600 X 17) Rs.12,85,200/-.

¶71

15. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure as per the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in “ National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi”. In total, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.13,55,200/- to the claimants, but, as the petitioners have claimed only Rs.7,00,000/-, the Tribunal restricted the claim of petitioners to only Rs.7,00,000/- and directed the Respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally

¶72

1 2018 ACJ 2782

¶73

2 2009 ACJ 1298

¶74

¶75

MACMA NO. 726 / 2023 VS,J.

¶76

to pay the amount to the Petitioners. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal is neither illegal nor arbitrary. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶77

16. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Claim Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs.

¶78

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶79

closed.

¶80

_______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶81

KS Dated 03.02.2026.

¶82

¶83