THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1907 of 2017
and
M.A.C.M.A.No.983 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are directed against the very same
award and therefore, they are heard together and being
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. M.A.C.M.A.No.1907 of 2017 is preferred by the Telangana
State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, (for short
'TSRTC') and M.A.C.M.A.No.983 of 2018 is preferred by the
claimants challenging the quantum of compensation, against
the award and decree, dated 24.03.2016 rendered in O.P.No.18
of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (for short 'the
Tribunal').
3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are
referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
4. The claimants, who are the wife and children of one
Nagula Thirupathi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'),
MGP,J
MACMA No.1907 of 2017
and
2 MACMA No.983 of 2018
filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of
Rs.6,50,000/- on account of the death of deceased in a road
accident that occurred on 25.08.2014. It is stated that, on
25.08.2014, while the deceased returning from his duty at
NTPC, Ramagundam, on his two wheeler, i.e. Bajaj CT-100
bearing No.AP 15 R 4315 and when he reached near NTPC
Gate-B, APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 3406 was negligently
stopped on the road by its driver-Respondent No.1 and the
deceased hit the said Bus and fell down. As a result, he sustained head injury and other bodily injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Godavarikhani, from there he was shifted to Medicare Hospital, Karimnagar, wherein he was treated as in-patient from 25.08.2014 to 28.08.2014. As the condition of the deceased was critical, he was shifted to Deccan Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein he succumbed to injuries on 06.09.2014 while undergoing treatment. On account of death of the deceased, the claimants lost their source of income. It is also stated that the accident occurred due to negligent parking of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3406 by its driver-respondent No.1, and the said MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and 3 MACMA No.983 of 2018 Bus is owned by TSRTC-Respondent No.2, hence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
5. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed counter denying the allegations in the petition and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 3406 of Karimnagar-II Depot, in fact, the deceased himself drove his motor cycle i.e. Bajaj CT-100 bearing No.AP 15 R 4315 in rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the Bus, which was stationed on the extreme left side of the road, from its rear right side. The age and income of the deceased at the time of accident was also disputed. It is stated that the compensation claim is excessive.
6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, the claimant No.1, who is wife of the deceased, was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 marked. On behalf of respondents, respondent No.1, who is driver of offending RTC Bus, was examined as RW.1 but no documents were marked on their behalf.
7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased died in a road transport MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and 4 MACMA No.983 of 2018 accident and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.3,82,834/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit directing respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of order. Aggrieved by the same, both the appeals have been filed.
8. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the claimants is that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation of Rs.3,82,834/- against the claim of Rs.6,50,000/-, which is meager and contrary to well settled principles laid down under Moto Accident Compensation cases. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal failed to follow the decided case laws while assessing the compensation and the Tribunal also erred in not awarding Rs.1,70,000/- towards medical bills, treatment charges and incidental charges as the deceased was treated at different hospitals from 25.08.2014 to 06.09.2014. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal awarded less compensation under conventional heads and prayed to enhance the same.
MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and 5 MACMA No.983 of 2018
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2-TSRTC submits that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. It is also submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in entertaining the claim petition and also making the TSRTC liable to pay compensation and entertaining though the accident occurred due to the gross negligence on the part of the deceased, who was riding a motor cycle at the material time of accident. It is further submitted that the petition of the claimants is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of motor cycle are necessary parties to the petition. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to see the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act before fixing the liability on the TSRTC. It is also submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the annual income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- without any documentary evidence. It is also submitted that interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and it should not be more than 7.5% per annum.
10. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sunil Kumar1 the Apex Court held as under:-
1
AIR 2017 SC 5710 MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and 6 MACMA No.983 of 2018 "8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid Section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim."
11. In the instant case also, the claimants filed claim-petition under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act. Since the claim-petition filed under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act, it is not open for the RTC to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and 7 MACMA No.983 of 2018 Counsel for the RTC as to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is hereby rejected.
12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the most important point which arises for consideration is, "whether in the petitions filed under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act, the ratio or law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2; National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others3, or Reshma Kumari vs Madan Mohan4 is applicable".
13. After gone through the above three cases carefully, this Court is of the considered opinion that in those matters, the Apex Court was considering applicability of proper multiplier, proper deductions; compensation for the loss of future prospects and proper compensation under conventional heads, only in respect of the claims arising under Section 166 of the M.V.Act.
14. In paragraph 17 of the judgment in the case of "Smt. Sarla Verma (2 supra) the Apex Court observed as under:- 2
(2009) 6 SCC 121 3 2017 ACJ 2700 4 (2013) 9 SCC 65 MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and 8 MACMA No.983 of 2018 "17. The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was amended by Act 54 of 1994, inter alia inserting Section 163A and the Second Schedule with effect from 14.11.1994. Section 163A of the MV Act contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Second Schedule contains a Table prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and income of the deceased. It specifies the amount of compensation to be awarded with reference to the annual income range of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. It does not specify the quantum of compensation in case the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/-. But it provides the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. The table starts with a multiplier of 15, goes upto 18, and then steadily comes down to 5. It also provides the standard deduction as one-third on account of personal living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, where the application is under section 163A of the Act, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the structured formula basis, even where compensation is not specified with reference to the annual income of the deceased, or is more than Rs.40,000/-, by applying the formula : (2/3 x AI x M), that is two-thirds of the annual income multiplied by the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased would be the compensation."
15. Even in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi and others (3 supra), the Larger Bench of the Apex Court considered the applicability of proper multiplier, compulsory deductions for personal expenses of the deceased, additional compensation for the loss of future prospectus and proper compensation under conventional heads that is loss of MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and 9 MACMA No.983 of 2018 consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, only in the claim Petitions filed under Sections 166 of M.V. Act. Thus, the law laid down by the Apex Court in above referred cases is not applicable in the claim petitions filed under section 163-A of the M.V. Act.
16. In the case on hand, the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act. Therefore, while determining the compensation, only the structural formula formulated under Section 163-A and Second Schedule of the M.V.Act can be considered. As per the evidence on record, the deceased was aged about 42 years as on the date of his death. Therefore, as per the structural formula under Section 163-A Second Schedule of M.V. Act, proper multiplier applicable in the case on hand is '14' as adopted by the Tribunal. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per annum, which is just and reasonable. From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.26,666/- per annum. Adopting multiplier '14', the total loss of MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and 10 MACMA No.983 of 2018 dependency comes to Rs.3,73,334/- (Rs.26,666/- x 14). In addition to the above, the claimants also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. As observed above, the ratio of Pranay Sethi (3 supra) is not applicable to the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Therefore, no compensation can be added towards loss of future prospects. So also, under conventional head, compensation of Rs.77,000/- cannot be awarded, as contended by the learned Counsel for the claimants. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to just compensation of Rs.3,97,834/-.
17. Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others5.
18. In the result, MACMA No. 1907 of 2017 filed by the TSRTC is allowed in part to the extent of reduction of rate of 5 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and 11 MACMA No.983 of 2018 interest on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per annum. MACMA No. 983 of 2018 is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,82,834/- to Rs.3,97,834/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization to be payable by respondent No.2. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned between the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal. Time to deposit the compensation is one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI Dt.06.04.2023 svl MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and 12 MACMA No.983 of 2018 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.1907 of 2017 and M.A.C.M.A.No.983 of 2018 Dt.06.04.2023 svl