Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Nimmala Venkateswarlu vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport on 9 July, 2026
1
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
APHC010116542022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 9th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 226 OF 2021
AND 166 OF 2022
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 226/2021
Between:
1. NIMMALA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. RAMASWAMY, HINDU, NOW
AGED 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE,
...APPELLANT
AND
1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, REP. BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF
THE BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO. AP 11 Z 3236)
2. VENNU HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, NOW
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (DRIVER IN APSRTC) D.NO. 8-52/A,
RAILWAY STATION BACK SIDE PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND
MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT (DRIVER OF RTC BUS NO. AP 11 Z
3236)
3. KATIKALA SRINIVASA RAO BALA KRISHNA, S/O. KOTESWARA
RAO, HINDU, NOW AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS INDIRA NAGAR
COLONY, KARAMPUDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR
DISTRICT (OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. AP 13 T 1433)
4. KATIKALA NIL KUMAR, S/O. SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU,NOW AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS INDIRA NAGAR COLONY, KARAMPUDI VILLAGE
AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT (DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING
NO. AP 13 T 1433) (RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ADDED AS PER
2
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
ORDERS ON I.A. NO. 560/2017 DATED 18-12018) THE
RESPONDENTS 3 AND4 NOT ARE NECESSARY PARTIES AS NO
CLAIM IS MADE AGAINST THEM IN THE APPEAL
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto set aside
the Judgment and decree passed in M.V.O.P. 20 of 2016 on the file of on the
file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl. District
and Judge, Gurazala dated 6-09-2019 and enhance the compensation to
Rs.16,50,000/- as claimed together with interest @ 12 percent per annum
from the date of filing the Original Petition till the date of realization besides
costs and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2021
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 condone the delay of days in filing this MACMA against the
judgment and award in MVOP No. 20/2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl. District Judge, Gurazala dated 6-9-
2019 and to pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 166 OF 2022
Between:
1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR
DISTRICT. (OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NO. AP11Z 3236)
...APPELLANT
AND
3
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
1. NIMMALA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. RAMASWAMY, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
KARAMPUDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. NIMMALA TIRUPATHAMMA, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
KARAMPUDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT
3. VENNU HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS, DRIVER IN APSRTC, R/O. D.NO. 8-52/A,
RAILWAY STATION BACK SIDE, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND
MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, (DRIVER OF RTC BUS NO. AP 11 Z
3236).
4. KATIKALA SRINIVASA RAO BALA KRISHNA, S/O. KOTESWARA
RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. INDIRA NAGAR
COLONY, KARAMPUDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
(OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP 13T 1433).
5. KATIKALA ANIL KUMAR, S/O. SRINIVASA RAO, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O. INDIRA NAGAR COLONY, KARAMPUDI
VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (DRIVER OF LORRY
BEARING NO. AP 13T 1433).
...RESPONDENT(S):
Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtbegs to
present this Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to this Hon'ble Court
against the Order and Decree dated 06-09-2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 20 of
2016 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X
Additional District Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
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 827 days in presenting the appeal filed against the Order
and Decree dated 06-09-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 20 of 2016 on the file of
the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum-X Additional District
Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2022
4
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
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
grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dated
06-09-2019 passed in M.V.O.P No. 20 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Gurazala,
Guntur District including of execution proceedings pending disposal of the
above M.A.C.M.A and pass
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SIVA PRASAD KATAKAMSETTY
The Court made the following:
5
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose of them by way of this common order.
02. M.A.C.M.A. No.226 of 2021 is filed by the claimants and M.A.C.M.A.
No.166 of 2022 is filed by APSRTC, challenging the order and decree dated
06.09.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.20 of 2016 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Gurazala, wherein
the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,52,601/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs
Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred and One only) to the claimants, on account
of the death of Nimmala Manikanta in a road accident that occurred on
22.11.2015.
03. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are
arrayed before the Tribunal.
04. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows:
a) On 22.11.2015 at about 2.30 p.m., while Nimmala Manikanta
(hereinafter be referred as deceased) along with others were going in a lorry
bearing registration No.AP12T 1433 from Deverampadu Village to Karempudi,
the driver of the RTC bus bearing registration No.AP11Z 3236, driving the
same in a rash and negligent manner coming from the opposite direction,
came to the extreme wrong side and hit the lorry. As a result of which, the
deceased and others sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the
6
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022accident, the deceased was shifted to Sai Tirumala Super Speciality Hospital,
Narasaraopet, Guntur District and as his condition was critical, he was later
shifted to NRI Hospital, Mangalagiri, where he succumbed to the injuries on
15.12.2015. In the said accident, six persons died and some others sustained
severe injuries.
b) After the accident, the matter was reported to the police and the
Station House Officer, Piduguralla Town Police Station, registered the same
as a case in Crime No.351 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 337, 338
and 304-A IPC against the driver of the RTC bus. It is submitted that the
accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
RTC bus and the driver and the owner of the lorry. It is further pleaded that the
owner of the APSRTC bus is veraciously liable for the negligent acts of its
driver i.e., 2nd respondent.
c) It is further submitted that the deceased was aged about 19 years
and was working as a clerk in the broker’s office of one Chirumamilla Srinu,
earning a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. By taking into consideration the
future prospects of the deceased, his income would have been higher. On
account of the death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their financial
support. The petitioners spent nearly Rs.4,00,000/- towards his treatment,
apart from attendant charges, funeral expenses and transportation charges.
Except the petitioners, there are no other dependants or legal representatives
7
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
of the deceased. The petitioners have lost their dependency and have also
suffered mental agony and pain due to the premature death of the deceased.
05. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2/driver of the APSRTC bus
remained exparte.
06. The 1st respondent/APSRTC filed a written statement contending that
the Corporation did not admit the factum and manner of the accident, age,
occupation and income of the deceased. It was contended that there was no
rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing
No.AP 11 Z 3236 at the time of the accident and, therefore, the 1st respondent
is not liable to pay any compensation amount. It was further contended that
the accident occurred only due to rash, negligent and confused driving of the
driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 1433, in which the deceased was
travelling as an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle, and that the death
of the deceased in the said accident occurred due to the composite
negligence of both the drivers of lorry and the bus. It was also contended that
the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties i.e., the
owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 1433 and the 1st
respondent plied the bus on the alleged date of accident in the said route and
the claimants were not dependants on the earnings of the deceased.
07. The 4th respondent adopted the written statement filed by the 3rd
respondent. The 3rd respondent filed written statement contending that the
8
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
accident on 22.11.2015 was caused only due to the rash and negligent driving
of the APSRTC driver i.e, the 2nd respondent, and that no crime was
registered against respondents No.3 and 4 attributing any responsibility to
them for the said accident, which clearly shows that there was no fault on the
part of respondents No.3 and 4 in the above said accident. It was further
contended that the 1st respondent openly apologized and gave a paper
statement stating that the said accident was occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the 2nd respondent only and they will help immediately and
pay the compensation to the death and injured persons. The 3rd respondent is
having a valid licence for the lorry and that the Piduguralla police verified all
the concerned registration documents of the lorry and found correct and
respondents Ns.3 and 4 were impleaded in the petition only as formal parties.
08. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for
trial:
“1. Whether the death of Nimmala Manikanta/deceased occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11 Z
3236 or the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Lorry bearing No.AP13T 1433?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for the amount of compensation claimed
by them, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?”
9
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
09. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1
to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary
evidence was adduced.
10. After hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded
compensation as follows:
“In the result, petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs
in favour of the petitioners against the Respondents No.1 and 2
by awarding compensation amount of Rs.10,52,601/- (Rupees
Ten Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Six hundred and One Only) to
the petitioners with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of
filing of this petition till the date of realization.
(a) The Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable
to pay the said compensation amount to the petitioners.
(b) The 1st respondent is directed to deposit the said
compensation amount including costs and interest within two
months before this Tribunal from the date of this order. In the
event of failure of deposit, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are
entitled to get the compensation amount by proceeding in
accordance with law.
(c) The 1st petitioner being the father of deceased is entitled to
compensation amount of Rs.4,52,601/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
Fifty Two Thousand and Six Hundred One only) with
accrued interest and the 1st petitioner is permitted to
withdraw an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Fifty Thousand only) on such deposit and the remaining
amount shall be kept in F.D.R. in any Nationalized Bank for
a period of two years.
(d) The 2nd respondent being the mother of deceased is entitled
to compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six
Lakhs only) with accrued interest and total costs and the 1 st
petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on such deposit
10
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022and the remaining amount shall be kept in F.D.R. in any
Nationalized Bank for a period of two years.
(e) The petition is dismissed against Respondent Nos.3 and 4,
but in the circumstances no costs.
(f) The Award is subjected to any compensation already
awarded under Section 140 of the M.V. Act.
(g) The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
(h) The decree will be supplied to the petitioners, after
verification by Office as to payment of Court Fee and
exemption if any sought at the time of filing of this case and
on clearance of Court Fee dues, if any.”
11. Aggrieved by the award, the claimants preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.226 of
2021, contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.6,000/- without considering the minimum wages payable to a
mason. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to add 40% towards
future prospects, though the deceased was below 40 years of age. The
claimants also contend that the Tribunal awarded lesser compensation under
various heads, failed to award filial consortium to the parents of the deceased,
and awarded interest at 8% per annum instead of 12% per annum.
12. Aggrieved by the same award, APSRTC preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.166
of 2022, contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and not
the APSRTC bus driver. The Tribunal further failed to consider that the
deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle
and, therefore, ought not to have fastened the liability on APSRTC. It is further
contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was no evidence on
11
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
record to award a sum of Rs.3,29,601/- towards medical expenses. The
Tribunal also failed to appreciate that there was no evidence to prove the
occupation and income of the deceased and, therefore, erred in fixing his
monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal further failed to consider that the
deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle
and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation.
13. Heard Mr.Katakamsetty Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the claimants
and Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.
14. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?
POINT:
15. With regard to Issue No.1, the 1st claimant, who is the father of the
deceased as well as an eye-witness to the accident, deposed as P.W.1 that
on 22.11.2015 at about 2:00 p.m., while he, his wife, the deceased and others
were travelling in a lorry from Deverampadu Village of Rajupalem Mandal, the
driver of the APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 11 Z 3236, while driving
the bus in a rash and negligent manner, coming from opposite direction came
extreme wrong side and hit the lorry, in which they were going, resulting in
injuries to his wife, the deceased and others. The 2nd claimant, who is the
mother of the deceased and also an eye-witness to the accident, was
examined as P.W.2 and deposed on the same lines as P.W.1. In support of
12
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
their case, the claimants marked Exs.A1 to A10. The respondents neither
adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence in
support of their case. Though APSRTC raised a ground in its appeal that the
accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the drivers of both the
vehicles, a perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal recorded a clear
finding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had not chosen to examine any witness
to establish that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of
the drivers of both the vehicles. They also did not place any circumstantial
evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the manner in
which the accident took place established that both the drivers were
responsible for the accident. As such, relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1
and 2, coupled with Ex.A2/copy of the charge sheet, which was filed after due
investigation against the driver of the APSRTC bus, the Tribunal answered
Issue No.1 by holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the APSRTC bus driver alone, which in the opinion of this Court was
rightly considered and needs no interference.
16. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, as per the evidence of
P.W.s 1 and 2, the deceased was aged about 19 years as on the date of the
accident and was working as a clerk in the broker office of Chirumamilla Srinu,
earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, in the absence of any evidence to
that extent, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-
per month, which is equivalent to the minimum wages applicable as on the
13
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
date of the accident, which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and
requires no interference. As the deceased was a bachelor, aged about 19
years, the Tribunal deducted 50% of his income towards personal and living
expenses and by applying the relevant multiplier of ’18’ applicable to the age
of the deceased as recorded in Ex.A4/post-mortem certificate, loss of earnings
comes to Rs.6,48,000/- (Rs.6,000 – 50% X 12 X 18).
17. At this stage, learned counsel for the claimants vehemently contended
that the Tribunal erred in not awarding an addition of 40% towards future
prospects to the income of the deceased, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi1. On a perusal of the
impugned award, it can be observed that, the Tribunal has not considered the
future prospects while awarding the compensation. Since the deceased was
aged 19 years at the time of the accident, the claimants are entitled to an
addition of 40% towards future prospects. Accordingly, the loss of dependency
is recalculated at Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.6,48,000/- + 40%).
18. Apart from the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,29,601/-
towards medical expenses, taking into consideration that the accident
occurred on 22.11.2015 and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries
sustained in the said accident on 15.12.2015 while undergoing treatment. The
Tribunal rightly relied upon Exs.A5 to A10 (medical bills) in awarding the said
1
2017 ACJ 2700
14
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
amount towards the medical expenses incurred for the treatment of the
deceased.
19. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards parental
consortium, and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. However, the
Tribunal awarded parental consortium only to one of the parents. Since both
the claimants are the parents of the deceased, each of them is entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium. Accordingly, this Court deems it
appropriate to award an additional sum of Rs.40,000/- towards parental
consortium to the 2nd claimant.
20. Thus, to sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts
granted in the present appeal, in the light of the computations made above, are
as follows:
Head Amount granted Amount now awarded by
by the Tribunal this Court
Loss of future earnings Rs.6,48,000/- Rs. 9,07,200/-
and dependency of
deceased
Medical expenses Rs.3,29,601/- Rs.3,29,601/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Love and Rs.40,000/- Rs.80,000/-
affection towards parents
Transportation Charges Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.10,52,601/- Rs.13,51,801/-
15
VS,J
MACMA Nos.226 of 2021 and
166 of 2022
21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.166 of 2022 preferred by the APSRTC is
dismissed.
22. Subsequently, M.A.C.M.A.No.226 of 2021 preferred by the claimants is
partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge, Gurazala, vide
order dated 06.09.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.20 of 2016 is enhanced from
Rs.10,52,601/- to Rs.13,51,801/-, with interest as ordered by the Tribunal. The
compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner
and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: 09.07.2026
KGR
