Andhra Pradesh High Court
MACMA/449/2019 of Bhundari Krishnaiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on 22 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 449/2019 Between: 1. BHUNDARI KRISHNAIAH,, S/O.
APHC010163902019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
Between:
1. BHUNDARI
KRISHNAIAH,,
S/O.
VEERAIAH,
AGED
ABOUT 61 YEARS,
2. BHUNADRI MARATHI, W/O. KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT
56 YEARS, 2ND LINE RAMANNNAPET, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. ANDHRA
PRADESH
STATE
ROAD
TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,
rep.
by
its
Managing
Director
Musheerabag, HYDERABAD
...RESPONDENT
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High CourtMemorandam of Civil Misellaneous Appeal under section 173 of M.V.Act aggrived by the order passed in M.V.O.P.522 of 2013 on the file of the Motors Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Addl. District Judge, Guntur IA NO: 1 OF 2019
TCDS,J
MACMA_449_2019
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 condone the delay of 738days in filing this MACMA against the judgment and award in MVOP No. 522 of 2013 on the file the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Addl. District Judge, Guntur dated 25-1-2017 and to pass such other necessary orders as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
The Court made the following:
TCDS,J
MACMA_449_2019
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
MACMA No.197 OF 2021
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT :-
1. The present appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by order dated 25.01.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, and prayed to enhance the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 09.05.1993 while the 2nd petitioner and one Mogili Rama Rao along with the deceased boy were proceeding on cycle on the left side of the road margin, when they reached R & B road, between Payapur and Nuthankal Payapur bus stage, Tallada, Khammam District, the bus belonging to the respondent corporation bearing registration No AP 9 Z 5165 came in wrong side at high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed the cycle. As a result of which the deceased died on the spot and the said Mogili Rama Rao also died later. A case in
TCDS,J MACMA_449_2019
Cr.No.24 of 1993 was registered against the driver of the APSRTC bus under section 304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code. Later the same was investigated into and charge sheet was filed against the driver, stating that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus.
4. It was further case of the petitioners that their son was aged six (06) years and was studying 1st standard as on the date of the accident. It was further stated had, the deceased not met with the accident, he would have pursued higher studies and thereafter would have secured employment. It was further stated that in view of the demise of the deceased, the petitioner lost their future support and apart from the same they underwent mental agony. In those circumstances they have approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the death of their son.
5. On the other hand the respondent filed counter- affidavit stating that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus. It was further contended that the
TCDS,J MACMA_449_2019
police without properly conducting the investigation filed charge sheet, so as to fasten the liability on the respondent/APSRTC. It was further contended that the list of witnesses examined by the police were relatives of the petitioners and therefore no evidentiary value can be given to the said witnesses. With these pleadings, respondent prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW-1 and marked documents in Exhibit A1–A5. On the other hand the respondent neither adduced any oral evidence nor placed any documentary evidence. After enquiry the Tribunal by order under challenge awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- together with the interest @9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed.
7. Heard Sri.Siva Prasad Katakamsetty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Aravala Rama
TCDS,J MACMA_449_2019
rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.
8. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal without considering the case of the petitioners in its proper perspective, awarded a paltry amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. He would further submit that admittedly the deceased was studying 1st standard as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted just compensation by taking into consideration of the fact that had the deceased not met with an accident, he would have pursued high studies and would also have secured employment. It was further contended that in view of the demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their future financial support and these aspects were ignored by the Tribunal while awarding compensation. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent would submit that APSRTC paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioners as full and final settlement of compensation during the pendency of the claim petition and the same was received by the petitioners without any protest. It was further contended that, as such the petitioners are not
TCDS,J MACMA_449_2019
entitled to receive any other amounts. Despite the same, the Tribunal further awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- in addition to the amount already received by the petitioners. It was further contended that the deceased was not earning and taking into consideration of the same, the Tribunal had awarded just compensation.
9. Admittedly, the deceased boy was studying 1st standard as on the date of accident. Further, once the same is admitted, it is incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to award just compensation to the petitioners. As already stated that had the deceased boy not met with the accident, he would have secured employment and taken care of the petitioners during their old age period. Taking into consideration of the facts of the case on hand, this Court feels that, it is appropriate to fix the income of the deceased boy as Rs.25,000/- per annum. Accordingly, the compensation is computed as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Vs. Praney Sethi”1 as under:
1 2017 16 SCC 680
TCDS,J MACMA_449_2019
Description of the Head Amount Entitled in Rupees Net Annual Income Rs.25,000/- Multiplier
Loss of Dependency Rs.25,000x18 = Rs.4,50,000/- Conventional Heads:
(i) Filial consortium (2 claimants) Rs.80,000/-
(ii) Loss of Estate
(iii) Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.5,60,000/-
10. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is allowed and the compensation enhanced to from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,60,000/-. The respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order together with an interest @ 9% per annum. It is needless to mention that the petitioners shall not claim interest for the period of delay that caused in
TCDS,J MACMA_449_2019
preferring the present appeal as per order dated 06.04.2026 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in the present appeal.
11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. __________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J 23.04.2026 CMK
TCDS,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
MACMA NO.449 of 2019 23.04.2026
CMK