Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Sonti Anjaiah -Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - Respondents
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1231 of 2012
Decided on : 26-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : NARESH BYRAPANENI
For the Respondent: SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC
A father is entitled to claim compensation for the death of his minor son in a motor vehicle accident, and the Claims Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence was erroneous.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 and 163A - Appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal regarding compensation for the death of a minor due to a bus accident - The Claims Tribunal attributed 50% negligence to the father and dismissed the claim - The court found that the father is entitled to compensation as he was the sole claimant and the accident was due to the negligent driving of the bus driver. (Paras 1, 6, 11, 12, 14)
(B) Compensation - The court determined that the notional income of the deceased minor should be Rs.15,000/- per annum with a multiplier of 11, leading to a total compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- with 6% interest. (Paras 12, 14)
(C) Contributory Negligence - The court ruled that the Claims Tribunal's finding of contributory negligence was erroneous as there was no evidence to support it. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the father of a minor boy who died after being hit by a bus while waiting at a bus stop. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim attributing negligence to both the boy and his father.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the father was entitled to compensation as the accident was solely due to the bus driver's negligence.
Issues: The main issues were whether a father can claim compensation for the death of his minor son and whether the Claims Tribunal's award required interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the father is entitled to compensation despite the Claims Tribunal's erroneous attribution of negligence and clarified the calculation of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Result: Appeal allowed; the impugned award is set aside, and compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- is granted with interest.
JUDGMENT:
The father of the deceased boy preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 09.06.2011 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 2010.
2. Heard arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C.
3. The following facts are required to be noticed:
A young boy - Sonti Rangaiah studying 1st class aged between 5 and 8 years was with his father and they were standing at Gopalapuram bus stop waiting to board an RTC bus to go to Macherla. A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No.AP- 9Z-7049 came there, but it dashed the young boy and ran over him leading to his death. This incident occurred on 29.10.1995 at about 1:00 P.M. About this accident, Crime No.46 of 1995 was registered at Macherla Rural Police Station/Ex.A.1. The dead body of the boy was subjected to inquest/Ex.A.3. The father of the deceased boy filed a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act as against A.P.S.R.T.C. in M.V.O.P.No.522 of 2010 and in its counter A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that it was the fault of the boy as well as his father that caused the death.
4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the respondent?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount, from whom?
3) To what relief?
5. The father of the deceased boy alone testified as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C., no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
6. After analysis of the evidence, the Claims Tribunal recorded that the driver of the offending A.P.S.R.T.C. bus was responsible only for 50% of the cause and the remaining 50% of negligence was on part of the father of the deceased boy. Thereafter stating that a mother could have been a dependent, but a father could never be said to be a dependent for the deceased son, it dismissed the claim filed by the father.
7. Before proceeding further, it requires a mention here that the subject matter accident took place in the year 1995. Thereafter the father of the deceased boy filed M.V.O.P.No.1389 of 2007. On 10.10.2008 that was dismissed for default. Stating that there was no bar of limitation, the father of the deceased then filed M.V.O.P.No.522 of 2010 in which the impugned award was passed.
8. The arguments of Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned counsel for appellant/claimant is that since the claim was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the approach of the Claims Tribunal suffers from legal errors as well as factual errors. Reference to ratio in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121was made by the Claims Tribunal but the approach adopted was misplaced. The Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the structured formula available in II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and granted needed compensation. The findings of the Claims Tribunal in attributing contributory negligence on the deceased boy and his father are incorrect. On calculations one could notice that the appellant is entitled to more compensation than claimed and 9% interest over it may also be granted. On behalf of the appellant, the following rulings are cited:
1. Ramla v. National Insurance Company Limited , (2019) 2 SCC 192.
2. Kishan Gopal v. Lala , (2014) 1 SCC 244.
3. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Gurram Naga Raju, 2024 0 APHC 31746.
9. As against the above, Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. contended that the view taken by the Claims Tribunal cannot be called as perverse and the conclusions were arrived at based on evidence adduced before it and the very claim before the Claims Tribunal was
