THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.454 of 2017 and 332 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.454 of 2017 filed by the Andhra
Pradesh State Road Trasnport Corporation (presently,
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation) and
M.A.C.M.A.No.332 of 2018 filed by the claimants assailing the
quantum of compensation, are directed against the very same
order and decree, dated 17.11.2015 made in M.V.O.P.No.1499
of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for
short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
against the respondents claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of M.Narayana (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.02.2013. According to them, on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding from Sarvarkar Nagar to IDA Nacharam on cycle for selling tea and when he reached in front of Suri Engineering Private Company, the offending vehicle i.e., MGP, J 2 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018 Bus bearing No. AP 11Z 105, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came from back side and dashed the cycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and the left side wheel of the bus ran over the deceased, resulting into the instantaneous death of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 35 years, doing tea business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, they laid the claim petition against the RTC, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, seeking compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs.
4. Before the Tribunal, the RTC, contested the claim by filing counter inter alia contention that the claim was made by the claimants is excessive and disputing the manner of the accident.
5. Considering the claim, counter filed by the RTC, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has allowed the M.V.O.P. awarding total compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs with 9% interest per annum to be paid by the respondents-RTC jointly and severally.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the RTC (appellants in MACMA No.454 of 2017) has vehemently argued that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence brought on record in proper perspective and erroneously held that the accident had MGP, J 3 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In fact, the accident took place due to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was riding the cycle without following the traffic rules and observing the moving vehicles on the road and that he suddenly came on the middle of the road and touched the body of the bus. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is contended that though the claimants have asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by selling tea, in the absence of any proof in that regard, the Tribunal ought to have restricted the income to Rs.5,000/- per month. It is lastly contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and it should be restricted to 6% per annum.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants (appellants in MACMA No. 332 of 2018) has contended that since the claimants have asserted that the deceased was doing tea business, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income at Rs.10,000/-. However, it is contended that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding future prospects to the income of the deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.55,000/- under the conventional heads, but it should be Rs.77,000/-. It is lastly contended that the claimant Nos. 2 MGP, J 4 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018 & 3 being the minor children of the deceased, are entitled to parental consortium.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC. Perused the material available on record.
9. It is the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-RTC that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence even on the part of the deceased as the deceased came on the road suddenly riding his cycle without observing the moving traffic and touched the bus and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory negligence. As seen from the record, Ex.A.1, FIR, was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle. Further, after due investigation into the crime, police laid the charge sheet, Ex.A.4 against the driver of the offending vehicle stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the driver was charged for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC. That apart, P.W.2, the eyewitness to the accident, clearly stated that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. However, the RTC did not take any steps to summon the driver of the offending bus to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who is the best person to speak in this regard. Further, no contra evidence was elicited in the cross-
MGP, J 5 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018 examination of P.W. 2, eyewitness to the accident. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 & A.4, FIR and charge sheet, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, which needs no interference by this Court.
10. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was doing tea vendor and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. However, in that regard no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants. Such being the case, the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- is on higher side in the opinion of this Court. Considering the avocation of the deceased, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. That apart, as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, since the deceased was aged about 35 years, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-). Since there are four defendants, after deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net monthly income that was being contributed to the family of the deceased comes to Rs.8,400/- per month. As the age of the deceased was 35 years 1 2017 ACJ 2700 MGP, J 6 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018 at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '16' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Adopting multiplier 16, his total loss of earnings comes to Rs.16,12,800/- (Rs.8,400/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.16,12,800/-). That apart, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). In addition thereto, the claimant Nos.2 and 3, being the minor children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.17,69,800/- towards just compensation. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the rate of interest is hereby reduced to 6% per annum from 9% on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization.
11. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No. 332 of 2018 is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.17,69,800/- which shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization payable by the RTC. The MACMA No. 454 of 2017 stands partly allowed to the extent of reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. Time to deposit the amount is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) MGP, J 7 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018 withdraw the amount without depositing any security. However, the claimants shall pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation. It is made clear that since the claimant No.4 is no more, her share of compensation shall be distributed among the claimant Nos.1 to 3 in the ratio as decided by the Tribunal. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 27.01.2023 gms MGP, J 8 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.Nos.454 of 2017 and 332 of 2018 27.01.2023 gms