HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 2479 OF 2015 and 30 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment
since M.A.C.M.A. No.2479 of 2015 is filed by the
Claimants/Appellants seeking enhancement of compensation and
M.A.C.M.A.No.30 of 2016 filed by the respondents-Andhra Pradesh
State Road Transport Corporation represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director and the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Kachiguda Bus Depot, being aggrieved by the award and decree dated 10-07-2015, made in M.V.O.P No.89 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- Cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case are as follows:
2The claimants have filed the claim petition under Sections 166, 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- lakhs for the death of the deceased-Mohd. Meeran Mohiuddin, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.09.2013 at about 10:00 A.M, near Afzalgunj Bus Stop, Hyderabad. It is stated by the petitioners that on the fateful day, the deceased was proceeding on a motorbike bearing No. AP 28 AY 3955 towards Falaknuma side and when he reached near Afzulgunj Bus stop, RTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 0850 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and collided with motorbike of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and received grievous injuries on his head and other body parts. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and while undergoing treated he succumbed to death. Based on the report, Police, Afzalgunj registered a case against the driver of the offending Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 0850 and after investigation charge sheeted him for the offence under Section 304-A IPC for rash and negligent driving. It was further contended that the deceased was aged about 57 years at the time of accident and working as Superintendent in the office of the Engineer in Chief, Irrigation and CAD Department, Hyderabad and used to earn Rs.43,129/- per month. As a result of the 3 accident, the claimants lost the sole bread winner of the family and therefore, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- against the respondents-Corporation.
4. Before the tribunal respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and the manner in which the accident occurred, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that on the fateful day, the deceased was not having valid driving licence and the motorcycle was in road worthy condition to ply. At that point of time the driver of the offending vehicle was 50 meter away from the bus stop and negotiating a turn, meanwhile, the deceased came from a bye-lane to the right side of the bus without observing the bus, he colluded with the RTC Bus and sustained grievous injuries. Furthermore, he also contends that he is at no fault and therefore, liability to compensate for the death of the deceased cannot be fastened on the respondents and prayed for dismissal of the case.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased, Mohd. Meeran Mohiuddin, due to the 4 rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 0850 ?
2. Whether the petitioner are entitled to any compensation, and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
3. To what relief ?
6. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A 11 got marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were got marked.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation. Perused the material available on record.
8. The learned counsel for claimants vehemently argued before this court that the claimants have proved their case that the deceased was working as Superintendent in the office of the Engineer in Chief, Irrigation and CAD Department, Hyderabad and used to earn a gross salary of Rs.43,129/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has deducted 10% towards income tax and further deducted 50% annual income and did not add future prospects. Thus, awarded meager amount. Hence prays the court to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation amount.
5
9. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent has contended that there is negligence on the part of the deceased who was riding his motorcycle and the trial Court erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 0850 and that the tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,39,550/- though the tribunal considered that PW-1 admitted that he was given compassionate appointment in the same Department as Junior Assistant and his mother is getting pension of Rs.17,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month and the left over service of the deceased was only eight months. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal.
13. With regard to the manner of accident, a perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence Ex.A-1 First Information Report, Ex.A2 Charge Sheet, has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of the tribunal.
14. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the claimants, the deceased was working as Superintendent in the office of 6 the Engineer in Chief, Irrigation and CAD Department, Hyderabad and used to earn a gross salary of Rs.43,129/- per month. In proof of the same, he has filed Ex. A-8 Pay-Slips issued by Engineer in Chief, Irrigation and CAD Department. A perusal of Ex-A-8 discloses that his gross salary is Rs.43,129/-. After deducting Rs.200/- towards professional tax, his salary comes to Rs.42,929/-. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 15% of her income, since the deceased was aged 57 years. Thus, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.49,368/- (42,929/- + 6,439/-). Since, the dependants are two in number, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased the net monthly contribution of the family comes to Rs.32,912/- (49,368 - 16,456 = 32,912/-) and after deducting 10% towards income tax, it comes to Rs.29,621/- per month. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the appropriate multiplier is '9' as the deceased was 57 years old at the time of the accident. Thus, applying the multiplier '9', the total loss of 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 dependency comes to Rs.29,621 x 12 x 9 = 31,99,068/-. In addition to that, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.32,76,068/-.
16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.2479 of 2015 is partly allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.20,52,972/- to Rs.32,76,068/- to be paid by the respondents-Corporation. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount. M.A.C.M.A.No.30 of 2016 shall stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________
21.03.2023 M.G.PRIYADARSINI. J