VICE CHAIRMAN-MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P., ROAD & Anr. v. MAMIDI PADMAVATHI 3 OTHERS

Judgment

18.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement :13.03.2026 Date of uploading :14.03.2026 APHC010681122012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3084/2012 Between:

1. VICE CHAIRMAN-MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P., & ANOTHER, ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MUSHEERABAD,ONGOLE.

2. REGIONAL MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, CORPORATION, ONGOLE. ...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. MAMIDI PADMAVATHI 3 OTHERS, W/O. SATYANARAYAN, R/O. 2-59-9, NEAR VIJAYA LAKSHMI CHITRALAYA, (VILL & M), PAMUR, DIST. PRAKASHAM.

2. MAMIDI MANIKANTA, W/O. SATYANARAYAN, R/O. 2-59-9, NEAR (VILL & M), PAMUR, DIST. VIJAYA LAKSHMI CHITRALAYA, PRAKASHAM. MINORS REP. BY IST RESPONDENT.

3. MAMIDI MANISHA, D/O. SATYANARAYAN, R/O. 2-59-9, NEAR VIJAYA LAKSHMI CHITRALAYA, (VILL & M), PAMUR, DIST. PRAKASHAM. MINORS REP. BY IST RESPONDENT. 2

4. MAMIDI VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O. VENKAT SUBBAIAH, R/O. 2- 59-9, NEAR VIJAYA LAKSHMI CHITRALAYA, (VILL & M), PAMUR, DIST. PRAKASHAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased toto set aside the order & Decree passed in MVOP No. 491 of 2009 dt. 19-6-2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I Addl. Dist. Judge, Ongole and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 6657 OF 2012 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 stay the orders & Decree,dt. 19-6-2012 passed in MVOP No. 491 of 2009 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I Addl. Dist. Judge, Ongole, Pending disposal of Court and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2012(MACMAMP 8245 OF 2012 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 vacate the interim stay granted in MACMA.MP.No. 6657 of 2012 in MACMA.No. 3084 of 2012 dt. 17/10/2012 by permitting the petitioners to withdraw the amount deposited to the credit of MVOP.No. 491 of 2009 on the file of hte Chairman MACT-cum-1st Additional District Judge., Ongole pending the above MACMA IA NO: 1 OF 2013(MACMAMP 35324 OF 2013 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 Counsel for the Appellant(S):

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

1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI 3 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 943/2014 Between:

1. MAMIDI PADMAVATHI & 3 ORS, W/O.SATYANARAYAN R/O.2-59-9, NEAR VIJAYA LAKSHMI CHITRALAYA, PAMUR [V] & [M), PRAKASHAM DISTRICT.

2. MAMIDI MANIKANTA, S/O.SATYANARAYAN R/O.2-59-9, NEAR VIJAYA LAKSHMI CHITRALAYA, PAMUR [V] & [M), PRAKASHAM DISTRICT.

3. MAMIDI MANISHA, D/O.SATYANARAYAN R/O.2-59-9, NEAR VIJAYA LAKSHMI CHITRALAYA, PAMUR [V] & [M), PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. [BOTH ARE MINORS REP BY ITS GUARDIAN M.PADMAVATHI P1]

4. MAMIDI VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O.VENKATA SUBBAIAH R/O.2- 59-9, NEAR VIJAYA LAKSHMI CHITRALAYA, PAMUR [V] & [M), PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. THE AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ANR, AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION O/O.MUSHEERABAD,ONGOLE.

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT ONGOLE. O/O.RTC BUS STAND COMPLEX, CORPORATION PRAKASAM DISTRICT. Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be ...RESPONDENT(S): pleased to IA NO: 1 OF 2012(MACMAMP 8382 OF 2012 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 condone the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal against decree and judgement 4 passed in MVOP No.491/2009 dated 19.06.2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal [Before the Ist Addl.District Judge], Ongole Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K. SARALA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC PNV)

2. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: 5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3084 of 2012 and 943 of 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: Introductory:

1. Both M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3084 of 2012 and 943 of 2014 are directed against the award and decree dated 19.06.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.491 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-FAC/I Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short “the learned MACT”).

2. The respondents before the learned MACT, representing the A.P.S.R.T.C. filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3084 of 2012 challenging the award, whereas the claimants before the learned MACT filed M.A.C.M.A.No.943 of 2014 seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the claimants and the respondents with reference to their status before the learned MACT. Case of the claimants: 4(i). One Mamidi Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and son of claimant No.4. On 12.07.2009, the deceased and his family members went to Tirumala. After darshan, on 13.07.2009 evening, while they were on their return from 6 Tirupathi and reached Nellore-Atmakur Bus Stand, Nellore and waiting for a bus to go to their village. (ii). A bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9078 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), which was going to Pamur, came there and stopped. With a view to reserve a seat, the deceased was trying to put a kerchief on the seat through the window. At that time, the driver of the offending vehicle, without observing the people, started the bus. As a result of the same, the deceased fell down and the rear tyre of the bus ran over his head. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. (iii). A case in Crime No.40 of 2009 of Nellore Traffic Police Station was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, the driver of the offending vehicle was charge-sheeted vide C.C.No.499 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nellore. (iv). The deceased was hale and healthy, aged 47 years and was earning his livelihood through his business in wholesale provisions. He was maintaining a shop at Pamur and was earning more than Rs.50,000/- net income per annum and contributing the same for the maintenance of the family. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants lost all support of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

5. Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT remained ex parte. 7 Case of respondents: 6(i). The petitioners shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the RTC bus / offending vehicle, death of the deceased due to the accident, age, occupation, income of the deceased and the dependency of the claimants. (ii). Further, the respondents / A.P.S.R.T.C contended that the negligence of the deceased is the cause for the accident. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation.

7. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT: (i). Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9078, on 13.07.2009 at Atmakur Bus Stand in Nellore town at about 07:45 P.M.? (ii). Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? (iii). Whether the age and income of the deceased are correct? (iv). To what relief? Evidence before the learned MACT: 8(i). The claimant No.1 / the wife of the deceased, was examined as P.W.1 and one Gonta Krishna Murthy, another witness, was examined as P.W.2. (ii). On behalf of the claimants, Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. 8 (iii). On behalf of the respondents, one Shaik Shukkur, the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.1. Findings of the learned MACT: 9(i). After considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned MACT came to the conclusion that the petition is filed under Section 163-A and that involvement of the vehicle is enough. In addition, a case in Crime No.40 of 2009 was registered at Nellore Traffic Police Station and a charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the offending vehicle vide C.C.No.429 of

2009. (ii). Therefore, the version of the claimants was to be believed and consequently the learned MACT held the respondents, who are the owners and in whose control the offending vehicle was at the time of accident, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. (iii). The learned MACT, while assessing the compensation, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- and by adopting the multiplier „13‟, awarded Rs.3,64,000/- towards the loss of dependency and Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate. Under the head of loss of consortium, claimant No.1/ wife of the deceased was awarded Rs.7,000/-. In total, the compensation awarded to the claimants is at Rs.3,85,000/-. 9 Arguments in the appeal: For the claimants: 10(i). The learned MACT failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the earning capacity of the deceased and erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at only Rs.3,500/- per month. (ii). The learned MACT failed to award reasonable compensation under various heads and therefore the compensation awarded requires enhancement. For the respondents(A.P.S.R.T.C.): 11(i). The learned MACT failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. (ii). The learned MACT ought to have considered the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the evidence of R.W.1-the driver of the offending vehicle was not properly appreciated. (iii). The learned MACT wrongly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- per month without proper evidence and also applied multiplier „13‟ instead of „11‟, as the deceased was aged above 50 years. (iv). The compensation awarded under various heads is excessive and the rate of interest granted is also on the higher side.

12. Heard both sides extensively. Perused record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. 10

13. The points that arise for consideration in these appeals are: 1) Whether the findings of the learned MACT on the point of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and not taking note of contributory negligence of the deceased are proper and whether the compensation awarded at Rs.3,85,000/- under impugned award just and reasonable or requires any interference, if so on what ground and to what extent? 2) What is the result of appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.3084 of 2012? 3) What is the result of appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.943 of 2014? Point No.1: (i) Accident and negligence: Statutory Guidance: 14(i). As per Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Governments are entitled to make rules for the purpose of carrying effect to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. (ii). In relation to claims before the learned MACT, Rule 455 to Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, vide Chapter No.11, provides comprehensive guidance. As per Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim based on the registration certificate of the vehicle, insurance policy, copy of FIR and Post-mortem certificate etc. 11 Precedential Guidance:

15. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation1 , in para 15 observed as follows: “15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.” Legal context of the matter:

16. Although the application is filed under section 163-A, the respondents/ APSRTC has disputed the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and even adduced the evidence by examining the driver as R.W.1.

17. From the pleadings of the respondents and also the issues framed by the learned MACT, particularly referring to the Section under which the application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it can be understood that there was participation by both sides with an impression that negligence is a disputed fact. 1 2009 (13) SCC 530 12

18. It is also evident from the judgment that the learned MACT addressed the pleadings and evidence placed by the parties and discussed the aspect of negligence and answered the same. Negligence-Contributory Negligence-Composite Negligence: 19(i). If there is absence of duty of care and the rashness or negligence on the part of tortfeasor and the victim has no role of mishap, it is a clear case of negligence on the part of the tortfeasor. Then the tortfeasor and his master are completely liable. (ii). If the victim has some role in the process in the occurrence of the accident/ incident and there is failure to take proper care and the tortfeasor, then it is a case of contributory negligence and the liability can be apportioned among the tortfeasor and victim. (iii). If there is more than one tortfeasor and the victim has no role in the occurrence of the accident and there is neither a duty of care nor a failure on the part of the victim, then it is a case of composite negligence and all the tortfeasors are liable to make good the loss or compensate the victim jointly and severally liable.

20. In examining whether a case is falling under category of negligence, contributory negligence or composite negligence, one has to keep in view the following aspects: 13 (i) On whom duty of care lies. (ii) Breach of duty (iii) Whether there was any duty to take care on the part of the victim and breach, if any thereof. (iv) Evidence indicating who had the better and last opportunity to prevent the mishap.

21. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a case between Pavan Kumar and Another vs. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal and others2, after referring to T.O.Anthony vs. Karvarnan and others3 and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. K. Hemlatha and others4 addressed as to distinction between the principles of composite and contributory negligence vide para Nos.7, 8 and 9 as follows:

7. The distinction between the principles of composite and contributory negligence has been dealt with in Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (Chapter 21) (15th Edn. 1998). It would be appropriate to notice the following passage from the said work: “Where two or more people by their independent breaches of duty to the plaintiff cause him to suffer distinct injuries, no special rules are required, for each tortfeasor is liable for the damage which he caused and only for that damage. Where, however, two or more breaches of duty by different persons cause the plaintiff to suffer a single injury the position is more complicated. The law in such a case is that the plaintiff