THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the award dated 14.09.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.504 of 2014, on the file of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed by respondents herein seeking compensation was allowed, awarding Rs.13,31,600/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-APSRTC and learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record.
3. Respondents herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased Madugundi Raju in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.09.2014. Respondent No.1 is the wife, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters and respondent No.4 is the father of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased along with his friends were doing painting work to electrical poles which were laid in the middle of the road in between Athvelly and 2 Medchal and at about 01:30 p.m., while they were working near Masjid at Athvelly, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6277, proceeding from Medchal side towards Toopran side, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules, lost control over the bus and dashed the deceased, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Police, Medchal registered a case in Cr.No.344/2014 against the driver of the RTC bus for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and after investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 28 years and working as painter under a contractor and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month and contribute the same to his family. Owing to his sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants became destitute and lost the income source.
4. The appellant-APSRTC filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.
5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that there was some contribution by the deceased towards the incident and there is any amount of negligence on 3 the part of the driver of the RTC bus resulting in the death of the deceased. The Tribunal further held that the claimants were entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,31,600/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. Challenging the same, the APSRTC filed the present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation by taking the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as 20% instead of 50%; that the Tribunal also erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month instead of taking the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month and the award of compensation is on the higher side; and that the Tribunal had wrongly awarded compensation under the other heads.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-APSRTC reiterated the same grounds during the course of his submissions.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal had rightly awarded compensation by taking the contributory negligence of the deceased as 20% and also awarded compensation under other 4 heads. The same needs no interference and as such prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. The following points arise for determination:
(i) whether the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is 20% or 50% in the accident?
(ii) whether the award of compensation to respondents is just and reasonable?
POINTS (i) & (ii):
9. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that he along his friends and the deceased were working as painters under contractor on a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. On the fateful day i.e., 06.09.2014, they were attending painting work to electrical poles laid in the middle of NH-44 road in between Athvelly to Medchal. At about 1.30 p.m., while they were doing the work near Masjid at Athvelly, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6277, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, lost control over the bus while proceeding from Medchal side towards Toopran side and dashed the deceased, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving the bus. P.W.2 is the 5 colleague of the deceased working under the same contractor and he had directly witnessed the accident.
10. The appellant-APSRTC examined the driver of the bus as R.W.1. In his evidence, he stated that on the date of accident, he was moving the bus on the road beside the road divider. As one person suddenly jumped on to the road in front of the bus, he applied brakes immediately, but the bus just touched the said person. At that time, a truck was coming on his left side and there was an electrical pole to his right and there was no scope for him to take on either side also to avoid the accident. He further deposed that the case before the criminal court ended in acquittal. The Tribunal held that the deceased suddenly jumped on to the road in front of the bus which act is a sudden one, before the driver of the bus could become conscious and the damage could have occurred by the time the driver could become conscious before the vehicle touched the deceased.
11. From the evidence available on record, oral and documentary, and after perusing the testimony of R.W.1, the driver of the bus, it appears that there is some contribution of the 6 deceased to the incident. Keeping in view the available evidence, the Tribunal had rightly held that the deceased had also contributed to some extent in the said accident and fixed the contributory negligence as 20%. I do not find any justifiable grounds to accede to the contention of learned counsel for the appellant to enhance the contributory negligence to 50%. The finding of the Tribunal fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 20% is based on proper appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, and the same needs no interference.
12. So far as the award of compensation to the claimants is concerned, the Tribunal had taken into consideration the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and Rs.72,000/- per annum (Rs.6,000/- x 12) based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and in view of the fact that the deceased was working as a painter. The work of painting also comes under the category of skilled employment and fixing of monthly salary at Rs.6,000/- is just and reasonable. After deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses, the Tribunal had arrived at Rs.54,000/- per annum (Rs.72,000 - Rs.18,000/- i.e., Rs.72,000/- x 1/4). The Tribunal had rightly added 50% on the income of the deceased towards future 7 prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.
PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS1, and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.81,000/- (Rs.54,000/- + Rs.27,000/-) and by taking the aged of the deceased as 28 years had rightly applied the multiplier '17' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION2 and awarded compensation of Rs.13,77,000/- (Rs.81,000/- x 17) towards loss of dependency. By applying 20% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the Tribunal had arrived at Rs.11,01,600/- (Rs.13,77,000/- x 20%). The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs.5,000/- towards transport are set aside, as the said amounts are on higher side and not as per the settled principle of law.
13. [ In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the claimants are entitled for compensation of 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009(6) SCC 121 8 Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads i.e., Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. At the same time, claimants 2 and 3, being the minor children of the deceased are entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- each towards parental consortium and claimant No.4, who is father of the deceased, is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM3.
Thus, in all the claimants are awarded Rs.13,11,600/- (Rs.11,01,600/- Rs.70,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.40,000/-). The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 28.10.2022 Lrkm 3 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904