(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying thet the Highcourt may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 15.03.2018 in M.V.O.P. No. 44/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor for the following among other

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

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 of all further proceedings including the execution proceedings in MVOP No.44 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal cum IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District and pass)

Heard,

Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation/appellant, and Smt. C. Jhansi Rani, learned counsel appearing for the claimants.

1. This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “APSRTC”), against the claim petition filed by the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased, P.S. Pavan Kumar, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 27.07.2012 at about 08:45 a.m. near Taj Hotel, Irala, on Chittoor-Irala road, involving APSRTC bus bearing No.AP29Z3086 belonging to the 2nd respondent.

2. The parties are arrayed as mentioned in this appeal.

3. The fasciculus of facts leading to the filing of the said petition before the Tribunal are that the deceased was aged about 18 years and was studying 1st year B.Sc. Also doing books business at Kanipakam and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and was also performing marriages and other ceremonies as a priest and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and was contributing the same to the welfare of the family. The deceased was the only son to the claimants and they are solely depending upon the income of the deceased. On 27.07.2012, which was the fateful day on which the deceased, who was riding a motor cycle bearing No.AP03AQ7991 and on the way near Taj Hotel, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP29Z3086 which was driven by the 1st respondent came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road, dashed the motor cycle, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death on the spot.

4. In pursuance of the said accident, having came to know of the same, the Station House Officer of Kanipakam Police Station registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2014 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP29Z3086, and after investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

5. In oppugnation, the appellant/2nd respondent filed written statement denying the averments by stating that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP03AQ7991 along with two pillion riders. In the counter, it is stated that three persons are driving on the motor cycle, which is not only illegal and also contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The deceased, who drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, could not control the same and dashed the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP29Z3086, fell down, and died on the spot, and the other two pillion riders sustained injuries. It is further averred in the counter that there was no mistake or negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The claimants ought to have arrayed the owner and insurance company of the motor cycle bearing No.AP03AQ7991 which was involved in the accident as necessary parties, and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Since the deceased was studying 1st year B.Sc., and a student, the question of getting income does not arise and finally prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

                  i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing Regn. No. AP 29 Z 3086 or due to rash and negligent riding of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No. AP 03/AQ 7991, or by both?

                  ii. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

                  iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

                  iv. To what relief?

7. The Tribunal after verification, examining and hearing the parties at length, considering the evidences adduced by both the parties, arrived to a conclusion that issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and against the Corporation. In respect of issue No.3, the Tribunal, while relying on the judgment in the case of Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited vs. K. Murugesan and Another(2015 ACJ 183), taken the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and, in view of the judgment in the case of Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another(2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC)), the multiplier of “18‟ is taken into consideration and issue No.3 was answered in favour of the claimants awarding Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal while deducting living expenses of the deceased to be taken into consideration, deducted 50% and the compensation ultimately awarded to the claimants was Rs.10,80,000/- (Rs.10,000 – Rs.5000 x 12 x 18). At paragraph No.16 of the Order under challenge, wherein funeral expenses were awarded at Rs.10,000/- and for the interest part, the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamilnadu Transport Corporation Limited vs. Raja Priya(2005 (4) ALT 14 SC), was taken into consideration and held that the claimants were entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum.

8. While addressing the arguments advanced by the Corporation regarding rash and negligent driving by the deceased, who is a pillion rider and the accident occurred which has to be classified as contributory negligence, the Tribunal has initially answered by deducting 50% towards contributory negligence. However, the said arguments advanced by the counsel on behalf of the Corporation were negatived, and finally the Tribunal has held that deductions cannot be made towards contributory negligence considering the findings/evidence of PW1 and PW2.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced strenuous arguments regarding contributory negligence and the aspect of awarding compensation to the claimants at Rs.10,000/-, and he further submitted that awarding of Rs.10,000/- per month is also not well placed and is based on assumptions and presumptions, and hence the Award of the Tribunal needs to be set aside.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted her arguments confining to the averments made in the petition stating that the Tribunal has taken note of the evidences and the other material on record and awarded the compensation. The Tribunal did not consider the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while awarding compensation to the deceased, who was studying 1st year B.Sc., and the Tribunal, after taking into consideration all the legal aspects and the paramount consideration of the deceased‟s age ought to have followed the observations in the case of S. Vasanthi vs. Adhiparasakthi Engineering College((2022) 15 SCC 316), wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that “he would have surely drawn a salary equivalent to that of his classmates or at least an amount near to the said amount”. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to another judgment in the case of Navjot Singh vs. Harpreet Singh (2020 (1) TAC 736) , where the appellant was also a student undergoing a degree course in Engineering from a premier institute. He was 21 years of age. The High Court fixed notional income as Rs.5,000/- per month on the basis of what an unskilled worker will earn. The Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that the notional income could not be taken to be equivalent to the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled worker. The students recruited through campus interviews are at least offered a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month and considering the record and giving due weightage, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has fixed the compensation to the student in that case as Rs.20,000/- per month.

11. Having given anxious hearing to the arguments advanced by both the sides, this Court having taken note of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsels for the respondents/claimants in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Susubelli Bapuji and Others(2024 SCC OnLine AP 3955), is of the opinion that, there is no res integra or any cavil of doubt that the Court has ample jurisdiction to enhance the compensation which it feels as not “just‟. This Court is not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, who argued that in the absence of any Appeal/Cross-Objections, the Court is denuded of the jurisdiction of enhancing the compensation. As stated above, there is no res integra that if the Court feels that the compensation awarded is not “just‟, the Court especially the High Court can enhance the compensation. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded to the claimants for Rs.10,000/- is not based on any material and the claimants failed to place any material to establish that the deceased was drawing a particular amount at the time of accident.

12. As stated above, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court merely on the account that the student who happen to succumbed to the death which is unfortunate and had he been alive, he would have earned the same amount/salary as of his colleagues, and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court fixed the notional income at Rs.20,000/- per month. This Court is of the opinion that the same ratio need to be applied in the present case and there will be no justification to deny just compensation to the claimants on account of the sudden demise of their son in the accident and admittedly the deceased was 18 years of age on the time of death, which is not disputed.

13. Therefore, by taking the income at Rs.20,000/- per month, the total annual income comes to Rs.20,000/- x 12 = Rs.2,40,000/-. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the amount comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. Upon applying the multiplier of 18, the amount comes to Rs.1,20,000/- x 18 = Rs.21,60,000/-.

14. Further, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi7, funeral expenses and loss of estate are to be awarded at Rs.15,000/- each, with an enhancement of 10% every three years. Therefore, funeral expenses and loss of estate comes to Rs.36,300/-. When coming to granting consortium, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has granted Rs.40,000/-. In the present case, the claimants are the parents of the deceased, and hence, this Court finds it justifiable to award parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- each. With an enhancement of 10% every three years, the total amount comes to Rs.96,800/-. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.21,60,000/- + Rs.96,800/- + Rs.36,300/- = Rs.22,93,100/-.

15. Resultantly, in view of the above stated reasons and considering the fasciculus of judgments of the Apex Court, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, however, the Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal is modified, enhancing the compensation granted to the claimants from Rs.10,90,000/- to Rs.22,93,100/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The appellant herein is directed to deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount of compensation before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per their apportioned shares before the Tribunal. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee on the compensation amount awarded over and above the amount claimed in the Claim Petition.

16. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.