Telangana High Court
Smt. Shahnaz Begum vs T.S.R.T.C. on 13 December, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.617 of 2022 and 114 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
M.A.C.M.A.No.617 of 2022 is an appeal by the claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.114 of 2023 is an appeal by the T.S.R.T.C. Considering the fact that these two appeals arises out of the same award dated 20.04.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2421 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), these two appeals are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts leading to filing of these two appeals are that M.V.O.P.No.2421 of 2018 was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the wife and children of Abdul Hameed (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), against respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in an accident. It is stated that on 10.09.2018 between 6:30 a.m., and 7:00 a.m., while the deceased, who was an auto driver, along with other auto drivers 2 was waiting for the passengers at Gachibowli, the R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-6172 driven by its driver in high speed and rash and negligent manner, dashed him and others, as a result of which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is also stated that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 50 years and was earning Rs.14,000/- per month as auto driver. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C bus, the claimants filed the claim-petition against the T.S.R.T.C.
4. The respondents filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of Abdul Hameed, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing registration No. AP 11Z 6172, by its driver?3
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents ?
3. To what relief?
6. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
7. The Tribunal, on conclusion of the pleadings and evidence placed on record by the parties, vide the impugned award, held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus, and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.11,59,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the claimants as well as the T.S.R.T.C.
8. Heard Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the T.S.R.T.C. Perused the record.
9. The primary ground of challenge by the TSRTC in MACMA No.114 of 2023 was firstly, so far as doubting the accident itself, 4 in which the deceased died and secondly, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
10. MACMA No.617 of 2022 is an appeal filed by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation. The primary ground seeking for enhancement of compensation was that the Tribunal had not awarded the compensation as claimed by the claimants and secondly, the Tribunal had erred in awarding 10% towards future prospects of the deceased, so also the consortium to the claimants.
11. During the hearing of appeals, the learned counsel for claimants submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-, instead of Rs.14,000/-. He further submitted that Tribunal erred in applying multiplier '11', instead of '13', so also awarding consortium.
12. As regards the contention of the appellant-TSRTC in MACMA No.114 of 2023 is concerned, it has been argued by the learned counsel for TSRTC that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driver of the RTC Bus without there being any evidence on record. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact whether there is any 5 contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving the auto at the time of accident and was trying to overtake another auto near bus stop and in that process, the deceased lost his control and dashed the bus.
13. Coming to the first ground raised by TSRTC i.e., doubting the accident that occurred on 10.09.2018, this Court is of the opinion that TSRTC has failed to discharge its obligations so far as proving the contention raised by it by placing cogent, substantial material and evidence in support of its contention. TSRTC neither examined any witness nor marked any document to support their contention.
14. PW.2-A.Prasad, who has been examined as an eye witness, has categorically stated that he noticed the accident, which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drive of the crime vehicle. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined, nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly came to conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle.
15. In the absence of any material on the part of TSRTC, it is very hard to accept the contention of doubting the accident and 6 the accidental death of the deceased said to have taken place on 10.09.2008. The said ground raised by the appellant-TSRTC thus stands answered in the negative.
16. In so far as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for TSRTC with regard to the quantum of monthly income of the deceased, the appellants/claimants, except claiming monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- as auto driver based on Ex.A6-original driving license, have not placed any material or evidence before the Tribunal in proof of monthly income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof with regard to the income of the deceased, the MACT had erred in considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and thus, this Court is of the considered view that notional income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month, taking into consideration of his age, self- employment as an auto driver and considering the dependents numbering to six.
17. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal had rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month and in support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India [from Karnataka (DB)] in Kalavati and others v. Mirza Kaisar 7 Baig and another 1. In the said decision, the deceased working as lorry driver, whereas in the present case, the deceased was auto driver and therefore, the facts in the said decision and the facts in the present case are different and thus, the said decision relied upon by the learned counsel for claimants does not come to the aid of the claimants.
18. Coming to the appeal in MACMA No.617 of 2022 filed by the claimants, on perusal of the entire award, considering the age of the deceased as 53 years as on the date of accident, as per Ex.A6-original driving license, the Tribunal had added 10% of the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects. Since the deceased was self-employed and was aged about 53 years as on the date of accident, in view of the paragraph-59.4 of the decision of Hon'ble National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2 , addition of 10% towards future prospects is just and proper and in considered opinion of this Court, no need to interfere with the impugned award in respect of awarding of loss of future prospects.
19. Since the dependents of the deceased are six in number, one-fourth of the income towards personal and living expenses 1 2022 LawSuit(SC) 1159 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 8 is to be deducted as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 3 and the same was deducted towards personal expenses by the Tribunal and therefore, no need to interfere with the said contention raised by the claimants.
20. With regard to the multiplier, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the Tribunal had rightly applied multiplier '11' since as per Ex.A6-original driving license of the deceased, the age of the deceased was 53 years as on the date of accident and no error committed by the Tribunal as contended by the learned counsel for appellants.
21. With regard to the award of consortium, the Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in the case of Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 4 decided on 06.12.2022, taking into consideration the decision of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Sarala Verma (supra), as also in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. The said enhancement and revision has been done taking into consideration, rise in the cost of expenses and cost of living that has arisen during the intervening period 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 2023(1) ALD 107(SC) 9 from the date of decisions of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in its Constitutional Bench decision had said that there shall be 10% hike on the compensation awarded under general damages every three years.
22. The contention raised by the learned counsel for claimants/appellants deserves to be allowed to the above extent. This Court is of the considered view that the claimants are also entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses.
Conclusion:
23. In view of the above, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income Rs.96,000/- per annum (Rs.8,000/-
per month)
2 Future prospects Rs.9,600/- (i.e., 10% of the income)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.26,400/- (i.e., one-fourth of
expenses Rs.96,000/- + Rs.9,600/-)
4 Total Income Rs.79,200/- ( i.e., Rs.96,000/- +
Rs.9,600/- (-) Rs.26,400/-)
5 Multiplier 11
6 Loss of dependency Rs.8,71,200/- (i.e., Rs.79,200/- x
11)
7 Compensation for loss of Rs. 2,64,000/-
consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 6)
8 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
9 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation to be paid : Rs. 11,65,200/-
10
24. The total compensation, payable to the claimants is raised and enhanced from Rs.11,59,000/- to Rs.11,65,200/-. The said compensation amount shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till the date of the actual payment. The TSRTC is directed to ensure that the entire amount of compensation is deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by TSRTC. The ratio of apportionment of amounts among the appellants/claimants and the permission to withdrawal shall be the same in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.
25. In the result, MACMA No.617 of 2022 stands partly allowed and MACMA No.114 of 2023 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
26. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 13.12.2023 va/kkm