THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1298 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Road Transport Corporation, questioning the order and decree, dated 20.12.2018 made in M.V.O.P.No.39 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (XII Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court at Secunderabad (for short, the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents on account of death of the deceased, Gaddam Ashok, in the accident that occurred on 11.03.2013 involving the RTC bearing No.AP 22Z 0082, owned by the respondent, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased, along with his family members, was traveling in auto vehicle 2 MGP, J Macma_1298_2019 No.AP 22Y 5075, the offending bus came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Makthal and from there he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and on 19.03.2013 he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 38 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing Towel Designer at Kudkyal Textiles, Sholapur. Therefore, they laid the claim for Rs.10.00 lakhs against the respondents.
4. After considering the claim, counter and the evidence brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.13,89,600/- together with interest at 9% per annum and costs to be paid by the appellant. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-RTC.
3
MGP, J Macma_1298_2019
5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
6. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-RTC is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further contended that in the absence of any proof as to the income of the deceased, the learned tribunal ought not to have taken the income at Rs.10,000/- per month. It is lastly contended that the rate of interest fixed by the tribunal at 9% is too high and it should not be more than 6% per annum.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has sought to sustain the impugned order contending that the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation considering the evidence brought on record. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal.
4
MGP, J Macma_1298_2019
8. Insofar as the manner in which the accident took place is concerned, a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the pleaded accident occurred resulted in death of Gaddam Ashok due to any rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 22Z 0082 by its driver, and having considered the evidence of P.Ws1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending bus and has answered the issue in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. As seen from the record, P.W.2, eyewitness to the accident, has categorically deposed that the Accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Though he was cross-examined, no contra evidence was elicited to discredit his evidence. Furthermore, the appellant-RTC did not take any steps to examine the driver of the bus, who is the best person to speak about the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, in which the deceased was traveling, if any. 5
MGP, J Macma_1298_2019 Therefore, in the absence of such evidence adduced by the appellant-RTC, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in this regard.
9. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants have asserted that the deceased was Tower Designer at Kudkyal Textiles, Sholapur and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, since no documentary or oral evidence was adduced in this regard, the tribunal has took the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering the prevailing rate of minimum wages, this Court is of the view that the fixation of monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- does not warrant any interference by this Court. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the deceased was 38 years at the time of accident, this Court is of the view that the compensation of Rs.13,89,600/- awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and needs no interference. However, insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, as per 6 MGP, J Macma_1298_2019 the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others1, the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is reduced to 6% from 9% on the compensation amount.
10. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part. While maintaining the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal on the compensation awarded is reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 27.01.2023 mnv/gms 1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 7 MGP, J Macma_1298_2019 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No.1298 of 2019 DATE: 27.01.2023 mnv/gms