HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1440 of 2013
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in MVOP.No.1213 of 2010, dated 31.07.2012 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appellants are the claimants. The O.P. was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased/Badavath Ravi @ Raju, in the accident which occurred on 10.04.2010 at 11.00 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle towards Mamidala Village in order to attend a marriage and when he reached Mamidala 'X' roads, one APSRTC bus bearing No.28-Z-3179 of Godavarikhani Depot in high speed, rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased and the pillion rider fell down, sustained serious injuries and were shifted to Government Hospital, Gajwel and from thereto Gandhi Hospital Secunderabad and while undergoing treatment, the deceased 2 GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013 succumbed to injuries on 13.04.2010. Basing on the complaint of the family member of the deceased, a case was registered against the driver of the APSRTC Bus in Crime No.26 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 337, and 304-A of IPC. The claimants are the parents of the deceased.
4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents disputing the age, income and driving licence of the deceased. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,12,000/- but restricted the claim for Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum and apportioned the said amount equally to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased.
6. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence would be with respect to the quantum only. 3
GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013
7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has erred in restricting the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- though the claimants are entitled for Rs.6,12,000/- fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that the income of the deceased has to be considered as Rs.6,500/- per month as per the Apex Court proposition in Syed Sadiq and others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,1 as the accident occurred in the year, 2010.
9. The Tribunal has also erred in making calculation by deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/2 as the deceased was an unmarried person. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that the appellants are entitled for compensation under the head of future prospects and conventional heads and prayed to allow the appeal.
1 2014 ACJ 627 4 GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-RTC contended that there is no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal confirming the judgment of the Tribunal.
11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on 10.04.2010. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased, who deposed about the age of the deceased as 20 years as on the date of accident and the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and the deceased was also prosecuting his studies. Exs.A-1 to A-5 are the certified copies of FIR, inquest report, post mortem report of the deceased, charge sheet and MVI report. Exs.A-2 and A-3 disclose that the deceased was aged about 20 years. Further, Ex.A-4 discloses that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the RTC Bus. Ex.A-5 is the MVI report, which clearly discloses that there are no mechanical defects in the Bus at the time of accident. The charge sheet discloses that the driver of the Bus drove the Bus in a rash 5 GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013 and negligent manner and hit the deceased and as a result, the death of the deceased occurred. The oral evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence in Exs.A-1 to A-5 corroborates with each other as to the manner in which the accident had occurred and as to the age of the deceased. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence before the Court to prove the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month. But as per the proposition laid in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited2, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.4,500/- per month even in the absence of documentary evidence.
12. It is pertinent to mention that PW.1 pleaded in the claim petition and also deposed evidence before the Court, as that of the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- p.m. But the Tribunal considered the above proposition of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa's case (supra) and considered the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- p.m. Therefore, the contention of the appellant counsel as to the income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- p.m. cannot be accepted in view of the specific pleadings of the 2 (2011) 13 SCC 236 6 GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013 claimants. Admittedly, the appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, therefore, it is not proper to restrict the income of the deceased as per the pleadings and this Court is of the considerable view that the Tribunal has correctly fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- p.m., even in the absence of documentary evidence.
13. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- towards future loss of income restricting the claim, though the loss of earnings have been calculated to Rs.6,12,000/-.
14. Admittedly, the deceased is aged about 20 years as on the date of the accident and the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. If 40% future prospects is added, it would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500+1800). As the deceased is an unmarried person, 50% of his earnings has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, his contribution towards family would come to Rs.3,150/-. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & 7 GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013 another3, the multiplier applicable is '18' for the age group of 15 to 25 years. If the annual income and multiplier '18' are applied, then, the loss of earnings of the deceased would be Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.3,150 X 12 X 18).
15. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others4, claimants 1 and 2 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.
16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under the following heads;
1. Loss of dependency Rs.6,80,400/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each) Rs.80,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.7,90,400 /-
17. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of, granting a total compensation of Rs.7,90,400/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Therefore, both the appellants/claimants being the 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 2017 ACJ 2700 8 GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013 parents of the deceased, are equally entitled for the said amount and they are permitted to withdraw the same, as the accident occurred in 2010.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 20.10.2022 dv