THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 1608 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Road Transport Corporation, questioning the judgment and decree, dated 13.12.2016 made in M.V.O.P.No.143 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- against the respondent-RTC on account of death of the deceased, K. Venu, in the accident that occurred on 01.02.2015 involving the bus bearing No. AP 10Z 7776, owned by the respondent. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle from Secunderabad to Yapral, when he reached opposite to Prashanth theatre, the offending bus came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, the 2 MGP, J Macma_1608_2018 deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 24 years, working as Mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, they laid the claim for Rs.12.00 lakhs against the respondents.
4. The respondent contested the claim petition by filing its counter. After considering the claim, counter and the evidence brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.24,43,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs to be paid by the respondent. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the respondent- RTC.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
6. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-RTC is that in the absence of any proof as to the income of the deceased, the learned tribunal ought not to have taken the income at Rs.10,500/- per month. It is further contended that the tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future 3 MGP, J Macma_1608_2018 prospects considering the fact that the deceased was self- employed and it should not be more than 40%.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has sought to sustain the impugned order contending that considering the fact that the deceased was skilled worker, the tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/- and rightly added 50% towards future prospects. It is further contended that in fact, the tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased from the monthly income, but considering the fact that there are four dependents, the deduction should be 1/4th only. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Insofar as the manner in which the accident took place is concerned, a perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the offending bus, and having considered the evidence of P.W.2, eyewitness, coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the 4 MGP, J Macma_1608_2018 accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending bus and has answered the issue in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Although the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-RTC contends that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, it did not choose to let in any evidence in this regard before the tribunal by summoning the rider of the motorcycle. Even no contra evidence was elicited in the cross- examination of P.W.2, eyewitness to the accident, to discredit his testimony. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in this regard.
9. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was Mason by profession. He being a skilled worker, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the assessment made by the tribunal in fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/-. However, the tribunal has added 50% towards future prospects to the monthly established income of the deceased instead of 40%. But, it is to be observed that since there are four dependents, instead of deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the tribunal has deducted 1/3rd. Hence the amount after 5 MGP, J Macma_1608_2018 calculating with the above adjustment would be more or less same. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal.
10. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the order of the tribunal, dated 13.12.2016 made in M.V.O.P. No. 143 of 2015. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.
____________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 06.12.2022 Tsr 6 MGP, J Macma_1608_2018 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No. 1608 of 2018 DATE:06-12-2022