MACMA/825/2019 of ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs K. VENKATAMUNI on 1 April 2026

1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE SITUATED AT BUS BHAVAN,

MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD, PRESENTLY AT PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, AMARAVATHI, A.P.

...APPELLANT AND

1. K VENKATAMUNI, S/O. KANDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, AADHAR NO.701384445069, RESIDING IN KANIPAKAM, IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.NO.26, 1ST CROSS, GANESH BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 32.

2. SMT K MALLIKA, , W/O. K. VENKATAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING IN KANIPAKAM, IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.NO.26, 1ST CROSS, GANESH BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE

- 32.

3. K JAYARAM, , S/O. K. CHINNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HINDU, APSRTC DRIVER, D.NO.18-8-1B, MADHURA NAGAR, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S):

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 22.04.2019 in M.V.O.P.No 299/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District IA NO: 1 OF 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in M.V.O.P.No. 299 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

- Cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District and pass Counsel for the Appellant:

1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. HEMANTH KUMAR VENNA

The Court made the following judgment:

Aggrieved by order dated 22.04.2019 in MVOP No.299 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, the present appeal is filed by APSRTC.

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

3. The petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, on account of the death of their son, Sri K.Kiran (herein after referred to as, the deceased), in an accident that occurred on 27.07.2012, in which the bus bearing registration No.AP29Z3086 was involved. It is the case of the petitioners that, on 27.07.2012, the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle as a pillion rider. When the motorcycle reached near Taj Hotel situated on the way to Irala Village from Agarampalli Road, the offending RTC bus, driven by the 1st respondent/driver in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, came in the wrong route and dashed the motorcycle. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and he was taken to Government Hospital, Chittoor. After first aid, the deceased was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore, and thereafter to Lotus Hospital, Tirupati. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 08.08.2012. A case in Cr.No.33 of 2012 was registered against the 1st respondent under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC, on the file of Kanipakam, Police Station.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged sixteen (16) years as on the date of the accident and was hale and healthy. It was further case of the petitioners that the deceased was studying in the first year intermediate course and was also working as a helper in Sri Vinayaka Provision Stores at Kanipakam, earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It was further contended that the deceased had a bright future, inasmuch as he was also a sportsperson who had participated in the 57th AP School Games Federation, Inter-District Hockey Championship, in which he secured participation certificate in the year 2011. As the son the petitioners died in the accident, they approached the Tribunal by filing the present petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

5. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the deceased was travelling on the motorcycle along with one Sri Pavan Kumar and another person. It was further contended that, as there was triple riding on the motorcycle, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, and therefore, the 2nd respondent/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioners. Inter alia, the 2nd respondent also disputed age of the deceased.

6. In order to prove their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked documentary evidence in EXs.A1 to A15 and EXs.X1 and X2 were marked through the witnesses on their behalf. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent neither adduced oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence.

7. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before it, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,59,765/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent/APSRTC approached this Court by way of the present appeal.

8. Heard counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Hemanth Kumar, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 3rd respondent.

9. Perused the material available on record.

10. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle, inasmuch as there was triple riding and the deceased was one of the pillion riders. He would further submit that, in view of triple riding, the Tribunal erred in not holding contributory negligence on the rider of the motorcycle. He would also submit that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party, as the insurer of the motorcycle was not arrayed as party respondent. It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.64,000/- per month in the absence of any material placed on record by the petitioners.

11. To substantiate the contentions raised by the appellant, as can be seen from the record, it had neither adduced any oral evidence nor placed documentary evidence. On the other hand, the petitioners examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked documents in EXs.A1 to A15. PW.1, father of the deceased deposed as per the averments of the claim petition by stating that the deceased was working as helper and earning Rs.10,000/- per month in Sri Vinayaka Provisional Stores at Kanipakam. Further, one Sri K.Raja, proprietor of Sri Vinayaka Provision Stores was examined as PW.3, who deposed that the deceased was working in his provision stores and he used to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the deceased. Further, a perusal of the evidence of PW.2, Sri Jeeva Ratnam, eye witness to the accident, who clearly deposed that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus, inasmuch as he drove the bus in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle further the petitioners have also marked the copies of FIR and charge sheet in Exs.A1 to A2. A perusal of the contents of the said documents, it is clear that the accident was occurred in view of the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver. From the foregoing discussions, it is apparent on the face of the record that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver.

12. Further, the counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, as the insurer of the motorcycle was not arrayed as party respondent. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that, though it was contended that there was triple riding and negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, the 2nd respondent/APSRTC failed to place any evidence on record to substantiate its contention. Further, though it was pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, in the absence of any evidence on record, the same cannot be countenanced. It is incumbent upon the appellant to prove negligence so as to fix the liability on the insurer of the motorcycle. As long as the same is not established, the appellant cannot plead that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of insurer of the motorcycle. Therefore, the said contention of the appellant is rejected.

13. Coming to the quantum awarded by the Tribunal, though the appellant had contended that the same is excessive, as already observed supra, the 2nd respondent/appellant has miserably failed to disprove the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners. The evidence on record clearly established that the deceased had a bright future, inasmuch as he was a sportsperson who had participated in the 57th AP School Games Federation, Inter-District Sports Meet and also in Hockey Championship during the year 2011, for which a certificate of participation was issued in his favour and the same was marked as EX.A9. Further, the petitioners have also marked the copies of certificates issued by Zilla-Parishad High School, Kanipakam, which were marked as EXs.A10 to A14. A perusal of the documents, it clear that the deceased was a sportsperson who had secured various prizes/medals in long jump, running and shot put etc,. Apart from the same, as already observed supra, the evidence of PW.3 would go to show that the deceased was also working as a helper in Sri Vinayaka Provision Stores and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, especially in the absence of any material on record on behalf of the 2nd respondent/appellant. In such circumstances, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is liable to be dismissed.

14. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the claimants/petitioners contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meager and that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that the deceased was prosecuting first year Intermediate course and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He would also submit that, despite the evidence of PW.3, the Tribunal, for reasons best known to it, did not properly appreciate the same, including the future prospects of the deceased. He would further submit that the deceased was a sportsperson who had participated in inter-district competition, and a certificate of participation was also issued in his favour during the year 2011. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and awarded compensation accordingly, and prayed to enhance the compensation.

15. In order to appreciate the case on hand, it is pertinent to mention that there is no impediment for this Court to enhance the compensation even in the absence of any appeal preferred by the claimants. It is the duty of this Court to see that just compensation is awarded to the victim/claimants. In fact, the

Honb’e Apex Court in the case of Ramla and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited1 upheld the said view.

16. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the case of the petitioners has to be examined as to whether just compensation has been awarded to them or not. Upon perusal of the documentary evidence, it is not in dispute that the deceased was prosecuting the first year Intermediate course. The evidence of PW.1 reveals that the deceased was sportsperson who had participated in various inter-district competitions and had also secured medals. Though the respondent cross-examined PWs.1 to 3 at length, nothing was elicited to disprove their evidence. A close perusal of the record would reveal that, the deceased had a better future in terms of the achievements scored by him in the arena of sports. Further, he could have secured employment by acquiring further qualification or under sports quota. Viewed from any angle the deceased had bright prospects in future and the same is also evident on perusal of the evidence of PW.1 who deposed that the deceased had ambition to become a police officer. Though, it is difficult to assess the income of the deceased, the Court can determine the same on guess work. In the case on hand, taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was a sportsperson, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.12,000/- per month so as to award reasonable compensation to the claimants. Accordingly, the compensation which is payable to the petitioners is computed as under:

1 (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 192

Description of the Head Amount Entitled in Rupees Net Annual Income Rs.12,000x12=Rs.1,44,000/- Future Prospects (at the age of 16 years) Rs.57,600/- (i.e., 40% of the Income) Total Income Rs.2,01,600/- Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 50%) Rs.1,00,810/- Total Annual Loss of Dependency Rs.1,00,800/- Multiplier of 18 for the age 16 years Rs.18,14,400(18x1,00,800) Conventional Heads:

(i) Loss of consortium (2 claimants) Rs.80,000/-(2x40,000)

(ii) Loss of Estate

(iii) Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation Rs.19,24,400/-

17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal preferred by the APSRTC is dismissed. Further, having regard to the submission made by the counsel for the respondent/claimants, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.10,59,765/- to Rs.19,24,400/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Further, the appellant/APSRTC has directed to deposit the enhanced compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________

JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

Dt.02.04.2026 DSB

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

MACMA No.825 of 2019 Date 02.04.2026

U

DSB