1 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A No.2711 OF 2016
&
M.A.C.M.A No.2141 OF 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both these Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals
are being disposed of by way of this common judgment as both these
appeals are directed against the award dt.30.06.2016 in M.V.O.P
No.1595 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to
as 'the Tribunal').
2. In M.A.C.M.A. No.2711 of 2016 the Appellants/petitioners
had challenged the award dt.30.06.2016 in M.V.O.P No.1595 of 2012
with regard to the quantum of compensation and prayed to enhance
the same, and in M.A.C.M.A No.2141 of 2017, the Respondent/RTC
had challenged the award dt.30.06.2016 in M.V.O.P No.1595 of 2012 by contending that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- towards the compensation along with costs and interest @ 9% per annum as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- and the Tribunal failed to frame an issue as to the contributory negligence, leading to the accident as the deceased was crossing the road 2 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017 suddenly and there is negligence on the part of the deceased, and the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month instead of taking as Rs.3,000/- per month; and the Tribunal erred in awarding medical expenses without examining the authorized person and prayed to set-aside the same.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in M.A.C.M.A No.2711 of 2016 are discussed hereunder and the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.2011 at about 22.30 hours, while the deceased Sukhananda Rao was trying to cross the road, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-6771 driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Sunshine Hospital. Later, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital. In all, the petitioners spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical treatment. The deceased died on 12.07.2012 at 13.00 hours while undergoing treatment.
4.1 Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 62 years and was doing private service and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and contribute to his family. The accident was 3 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-6771.
5. Respondents filed counter denying the averments of the petition and contended that the accident was due to the negligent act of the deceased by crossing the busy road without observing the vehicular traffic on the road and causing inconvenience and confusion to the other road-passers, and the driver of the RTC bus is not responsible for the accident.
6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased, T. Sukhananda Rao, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-11Z-6771) by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
7. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exhibits Ex.A1 to A9 were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced by the respondents. Basing on the material available, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,70,000/-.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
4 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had
contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre amount as compensation. He further contended that the multiplier to be taken as per the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1 is '7' and further prayed to award the amounts under conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi2. Thus, prayed to allow the appeal. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he was crossing the busy road without caution. He further contended that the salary of the deceased cannot be considered to be Rs.10,000/- per month as the author of such salary certificate was not examined and prayed to dismiss the appeal. However, a careful perusal of the observations of the Tribunal would reveal that the respondents failed to adduce any evidence in proof of their contentions and the Tribunal was justified in holding that the driver of the bus of the respondents was liable for the accident.
10. A perusal of the impugned award goes to show that the Tribunal erred in not awarding just compensation to the petitioners despite the petitioners adduced sufficient evidence. The Tribunal fixed 1 2009 ACJ 1298 2 2017 (16) SCC 680 5 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017 the salary of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month in spite of the petitioners adducing evidence, oral and documentary, claiming that the salary of the deceased at the time of the incident was Rs.10,000/- and the respondents could not disprove the same as no evidence was adduced. As such, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the salary of the deceased is fixed @ Rs.7,000/- p.m. The loss of dependency would thus tune to:
Monthly income Rs.7,000/-
Yearly income Rs.84,000/-
Deduction towards personal Rs.58,000/-
expenses
(Rs.84,000/- (-) Rs.28,000/- (1/3
to be deducted as dependants are
2 in number)
Multiplier as per Sarla Verma 7
(supra)
Loss of dependency Rs.4,06,000/-
(Rs.58,000/- x 7)
11. This Court is further inclined to enhance the awarded amount in certain heads. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium respectively. They are enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- with 10% thereof, totalling to Rs.70,000/- + 10% = Rs.77,000/- as per Pranay 6 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017 Sethi (supra). The compensation amount awarded under the rest of the heads is justified, hence need not be interfered with.
12. Hence, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to the following compensation:
Amount awarded by the Tribunal Enhancement made by this
Rs. Court
Rs.
Transportation 10,000/- 10,000/-
Medical bills 78,000/- 78,000/-
Medical 50,000/- 50,000/-
expenditure
Damages to 2,000/- 2,000/-
clothing
Funeral 10,000/- 16,500/-
expenses
Loss of estate 10,000/- 16,500/-
Loss of 30,000/- 44,000/-
consortium
Loss of 1,80,000/- 4,06,000/-
dependency
Total 3,70,000/- 6,23,000/-
13. Though the claimed amount is Rs.5,00,000/-, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the settled law, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. Thus, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.6,23,000/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.3,70,000/-.
7 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017
14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A No. 2711 of 2016 is allowed, enhancing the compensation amount of Rs.3,70,000/-to Rs.6,23,000/-(Rupees Six Lakh and Twenty Three Thousand only). The enhanced amount shall carry interest @7.5 % from the date of petition till the date of realization. The petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount within (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Similarly, the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount, after deducting the amount if any already deposited, within (02) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
M.A.C.M.A NO. 2141 OF 2017 In view of the findings in M.A.C.M.A No. 2711 of 2016, this M.A.C.M.A No. 2141 of 2017 is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No. 2141 of 2017 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 9th day of February, 2023.
BDR