HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.3655 of 2011
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.425 of 2010, dated 03.08.2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.
3. The Managing Director, RTC is the appellant. The O.P. was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased/K.Pavan Kumar Reddy, in the accident which occurred on 20.06.2010. The said accident occurred, while the deceased was travelling along with one Chandrasekhar Reddy on the motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-BH-1679 from Hyderabad to Sadasivpet and when they reached Kovalampet village, the RTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-1942, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, the 2 GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011 deceased sustained head injuries and fractures and was shifted to Apollo hospital, Hyderabad, and from there, to NIMS hospital, Hyderabad and there he succumbed to injuries on 26.06.2010 while undergoing treatment.
4. Basing on the complaint of the driver of the RTC bus, a case was registered against the deceased, in Crime No.124 of 2010 on the file of Sangareddy (Rural) Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2 is the minor son and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. It is the specific averment in the claim petition that the deceased was working as a showroom Manager in Khazana Jewelry and was earning a gross salary of Rs.19,894/- per month as per Ex.A-7/salary certificate.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
3
GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011
7. Being aggrieved as to the liability and compensation awarded against the RTC, the RTC has preferred this appeal contending that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and prayed to set aside the orders of the Tribunal.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/RTC that the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the RTC bus and further urged that the driver of the Bus preferred the complaint against the deceased, for which, an FIR was registered. It is further contended that the evidence of RW-1 was not considered in proper perspective and that PW-2 is an interested witness, and hence, his evidence cannot be believed.
9. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for respondents/claimants that the claimants are entitled for more compensation than granted by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has erred in restricting the compensation to Rs.20,00,000/- though 4 GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011 it found that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,41,960/- and prayed to enhance the compensation.
10. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on 20.06.2010. The evidence on record clearly discloses that the RTC bus driver, took a diversion on account of an accident which occurred on the road and took diversion on to the opposite road and dashed against the scooter of the deceased. Though it is the specific contention of the appellant that the driver of the RTC bus was not negligent and did not drove the bus at a high speed and that the accident occurred in view of the diversion on the road. But said contention cannot be taken into consideration in view of Ex.A-2/charge sheet. Admittedly, the driver of the RTC bus preferred a complaint against the deceased immediately after the accident, but the concerned Police, after investigating the case, laid Ex.A-2/charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The contents of Ex.A2 disclose that the driver of the bus drove the bus rash and negligently and dashed against the scooter which resulted in the death of the deceased. Therefore, it can be construed that the 5 GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011 Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a conclusion that the RTC is liable to pay compensation to the deceased. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/RTC deserves to be dismissed.
11. In the judgment of the Apex Court in Surekha w/o. Rajendra Nakhate & others. V. Santosh S/o.Namdeo Jadhav & others1, their Lordships have held as under:
"By now, it is well settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants".
12. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company or RTC, the Court can enhance compensation of the claimants without there being any cross-objections/cross-appeals.
13. On perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is evident that future prospects of the deceased are not taken into consideration while calculating the compensation. There is no dispute as to the age and income of the deceased. As per the judgment in 1 2020 ACJ 2156 6 GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011 Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2, the claimants are also entitled for future prospects of 40% on the income of the deceased. As per Ex.A-7/salary certificate, the salary of the deceased was Rs.19,894/-. If 40% future prospects are added, it would come to Rs.27,851.60 ps. (Rs.19,894+Rs. 7,957.60 ps.). The claimants in this case are four in number and 1/4th of his income has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, thus, the deceased would be contributing 3/4th of his income to the family. The deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of the accident, as per Exs.A-3 and A-4 i.e. inquest and postmortem reports respectively. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (2 supra), the multiplier applicable is '17' for the age group of 26 to 30 years. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.3,34,219.20 ps. (Rs.27,851.60 X 12). Therefore, the loss of earnings of the deceased would be Rs.42,61,294.80 ps. (Rs.3,34,219.20 X 17 X 3/4).
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 7 GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011
14. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others3, wife, son and parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under the following heads;
1. Loss of dependency Rs.42,61,294.80 ps.
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to the wife, Rs.1,60,000/-
son and parents of the deceased)
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.44,51,294.80
rounded-off to
Rs.44,51,295/-
16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.44,51,295/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the appellant/RTC within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Respondent No.2 i.e. the minor son of the deceased, is entitled to 3 2017 ACJ 2700 8 GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011 Rs.10,00,000/- and the said amount shall be deposited in any Nationalised Bank as fixed deposit till he attains majority. The respondents/claimant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are equally entitled for the rest of the amount i.e. Rs.34,51,295/- along with interest and they are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, on payment of deficit Court fee, as the accident occurred in the year 2010.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 07.12.2022 ajr