Telangana High Court
The Tsrtc vs J.Jhansi Rani, on 12 December, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.926 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri Thoom Srinivas learned standing counsel for TSRTC for the appellants and learned counsel Sri. J.Pramod Goud for respondents.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/ TSRTC challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.718 of 2017, dated 02.05.2022 and thereby, seeking to set-aside the award against the appellants-TSRTC.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 01.12.2016, while the deceased i.e., J.Kumara Swamy returning to his residence after completing his duty as Technician-C (Engg.Supp) at National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, on his motor cycle Hone Neo bearing registration No.TS-08-EC-0950 and when he reached Tilaknagar cross-roads signal, RTC bus bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-5709 came in LNA,J MACMA No.926 of 2023 2 same direction in rash and negligent manner at high speed and suddenly swerved to the left side without horn or indication and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down from the two wheeler and the bus ran over him, causing grievous injuries and the motor cycle was badly damaged. Immediately, he was shifted in 108 Ambulance to Yashoda Hospital and then to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta and while undergoing treatment he died on 13.12.2016. The Police, Amberpet P.S., registered a case in Crime No.483/2016 under Sections 337 IPC and the same has been subsequently altered to Section 304-A of IPC after the death of the deceased and filed charge sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle.
5. The claimants, i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 3 are wife, son and mother of the deceased, have filed claim petition against the appellants herein under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,1989 claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-. During the pendency of O.P., petitioner no.3 died and her legal representatives are respondents 1 and 2 herein.
LNA,J MACMA No.926 of 2023 3
6. It is contended that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident, as Technician-C at National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, Tarnaka, the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.53,545/- per month and his entire earnings were contributing to the welfare of his family. The deceased was aged 52 years and has 8 years of service left and had the deceased lived upto the age of superannuation, he would have got promotion and his salary would have been revised by 30% to 40% hike and would have received retirement and terminal benefits as well as pension. Due to sudden death of the deceased, claimants are put to irreparable loss and mental agony.
7. The appellants herein filed counter and denied all the allegations, i.e., the manner of occurrence of accident, the age and income of the deceased and further contended that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of motor cycle and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of RTC Bus and finally, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
LNA,J MACMA No.926 of 2023 4
8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issued:
i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of deceased J.Kumara Swamy, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-5709 by its driver ?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents ?
iii) To what relief?
9. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of appellants, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked.
10. The Tribunal on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-5709 and awarded compensation of Rs.45,03,544/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The LNA,J MACMA No.926 of 2023 5 respondent Nos.1 and 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellants-TSRTC submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation amount against the facts of the case and evidence on record. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that no independent eye witness was examined to prove the manner of accident and Tribunal erred in adding 15% towards future prospects even though the deceased is going to retire in another four years. The Tribunal also erred in awarding amounts towards funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and loss of estate and loss of consortium and also interest and finally, submitted that award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
Consideration :
12. With regard to the main contention of the learned counsel that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus. The Tribunal considered the evidence of eye witness, P.W.2, LNA,J MACMA No.926 of 2023 6 who deposed that he witnessed the accident and also the charge sheet, as per which, the Police have examined four eye witnesses and have found that the driver of RTC bus was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The Tribunal came to conclusion held that the driver of RTC Bus is responsible for causing the accident with rash and negligent driving and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
13. The other contention raised by the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in awarding of 15% of the income of the deceased. The Tribunal on considering the age of the deceased as 55 years nine months as on the date of the accident, as per Ex.X2-service record and applying the principles as per the decision of Hon'ble National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 , added 15% of the income towards future prospects.
14. In Pranay Sethi, Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.3 held that an addition of 15% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was between the age of 50 to 60 years, should be made.
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA No.926 of 2023 7
15. In view of the above decision, the Tribunal had rightly added the 15% of the actual salary to the income of the deceased.
16. With regard to the quantum of interest awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in the case of Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 2 decided on 06.12.2022, awarded interest @ 9% per annum. Following the above decision, in considered opinion of this Court, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is just and proper. Conclusion:
17. In the absence of any material on the part of appellants- TSRTC, it is difficult to accept the contention of doubting the accident, the accidental death of the deceased and awarding of compensation by the Hon'ble Tribunal. The said grounds raised by the appellants-TSRTC company thus stands answered in the negative.
2 2023(1) ALD 107(SC) LNA,J MACMA No.926 of 2023 8
18. In the result, this Appeal stands dismissed. The appellants are directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount already deposited by the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
[[ __________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 12.12.2023 kkm