THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1546 OF 2014
AND
CROSS OBJECTIONS No.9569 OF 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT:
M.A.C.M.A.No.1546 of 2014 and Cross Objections are
being disposed of by way of this common judgment as both
these matters are directed against the Judgment and
decree dated 25.01.2010, passed in Original Petition
No.2144 of 2007 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Mahila Court at Hyderabad (for short "the Court
below").
2. In M.A.C.M.A No.1546 of 2014, the Appellants/RTC
had challenged the Judgment passed in O.P.No.2144 of
2007 by the Court below. The petitioners/respondents
filed Cross Objections No.9569 of 2014 in the said appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows. That on 26.06.2007, while the deceased Basika Ramanarayana 2 RRN,J MACMA No.1546 of 2014 & Cross objections Reddy and Naveen Reddy were proceeding to Bolaram from Lothukunta by Honda Activa Scooter bearing No.AP-9AK- 4751, and when they reached opposite to Hanuman Temple, Lothukunta, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z- 2970 came from the backside and, while overtaking the deceased scooter in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the scooter. As a result, Ramanarayan Reddy and Naveen Reddy fell down from the scooter. The bus's rear left side wheel ran over the deceased's body and received grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Secunderabad. The Doctor examined him and declared him dead. A case was registered against the driver of the Bus in Crime No.62 of 2007. Hence, the claim petition.
5. Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations made in the petition.
6. In proof of their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
7. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Court below allowed the O.P. in part by granting compensation of Rs.6,90,000/- as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- with 3 RRN,J MACMA No.1546 of 2014 & Cross objections interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till date of realisation.
8. Learned counsel for respondents/RTC had contended that the Court below wrongly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred was only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus. It ought to have held that the rider of the Honda Activa Motorcycle bearing No.AP- 9AK-4751 was also equally responsible for the accident. They further contended that the Court below failed to see that the insurer and owner of the Honda Activa Motorcycle were not made as parties to the Original Petition. As such, the claim petition is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties. They further contended that the Court below erred in taking the deceased's income as Rs.5,500/- p.m. and excessively granted Rs.15,000/- towards consortium and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Court below had erred in not taking the future prospects of the income of the deceased, the Court below failed to award compensation 4 RRN,J MACMA No.1546 of 2014 & Cross objections towards pain and sufferings, and the Court below failed to award the amount under conventional heads and prayed to enhance the compensation amount. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the RTC, and allow the cross objections.
10. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners adduced evidence of PW.2/eyewitness and got marked Ex.A1/C.C. of FIR and Ex.A2/charge sheet to prove the involvement of bus of the respondents in the accident and rash and negligent driving by the driver of their Bus, resulting in death of the deceased. The respondents contend that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC and on the part of the deceased. Having pleaded so, they did not adduce any evidence, and the Court below elaborately discussed the negligence aspect and rightly came to the conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-2970. Hence, this Court is not intending to interfere with the negligence aspect.
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.1546 of 2014 &
Cross objections
11. The respondents further contention that the Court below ought to have considered the monthly income of the petitioner on the lower side. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was working as a driver with Mahender Reddy Water Suppliers and Civil Contractor Establishment, and he was earning Rs.5,500/- per month. To corroborate the same, the petitioners have examined PW.3/C. Mahender Reddy, deposed that he was a Civil Contractor and he was carrying out the works in Indian Air Lines, Begumpet, and the deceased was working as a Tractor driver in his establishment for water supplies since 01.02.2005 till his death. Apart from that, petitioners have also filed Ex.A7/salary certificate issued by PW.3, which shows that the deceased was working as a driver in Mahendra Reddy Water Suppliers, which carries works of an Indian Air Lines, Begumpet, and his monthly salary was at Rs.5,500/-. PW.3 admitted that he issued Ex.A7, and he used to pay the monthly salary of Rs.5,500/-. The petitioners have also filed Ex.A8, which is AAI Airfield Driving Permit, Hyderabad Airport, issued in the deceased's name. Taking into consideration of the evidence of PW.3, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8, the Court below rightly fixed the 6 RRN,J MACMA No.1546 of 2014 & Cross objections salary of the deceased at Rs.5,500/- per month, which needs no interference by this Court.
12. The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.66,000/- (Rs.5,500/- x 12). To this, future prospects of 40%, i.e. Rs.26,400/- is to be added as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi1 as the deceased was aged 35 years. Since the dependants are 5 in number, a deduction of 1/4th of the deceased's income towards personal expenses, which the deceased might have spent for himself, is proper. The appropriate multiplier as per the decision of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 is "16". Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.11,08,800/- (Rs.66,000/- + 40% Minus 1/4th x 16).
13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first petitioner, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate to the petitioners, which are very meagre. However, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under conventional 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
2(2009) 6 SCC 121.
7 RRN,J
MACMA No.1546 of 2014 &
Cross objections
heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram 3. petitioner No.1, being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium, petitioners No.2 and 3, who are declared as majors vide orders in IA No.1 of 2022 dt.10.02.2023, as such, they are not entitled any amount towards parental consortium. However, petitioners No.4 and 5, being parents of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/- towards loss of filial consortium, and petitioners are also entitled to Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10%) towards funeral expenses. With regard to interest, the Tribunal granted interest @ 7.5% p.a., and the same requires no interference by this Court. In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.12,65,800/- towards compensation.
14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A No.1546 of 2014 filed by the respondents/RTC is dismissed, whereas the CROSS OBJECTIONS No.9569 OF 2014 filed by the petitioners is allowed enhancing the compensation amount from 32018 Law Suit (SC) 904 8 RRN,J MACMA No.1546 of 2014 & Cross objections Rs.6,90,000/- to Rs.12,65,800/-(Rupees Twelve Lakh, sixty five thousand and eight hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realistion. The respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount along with interest and costs, after deducting the amount if any already deposited, within (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same according to their apportionment as determined by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in both the appeals, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 25th day of September 2023.
BDR