Telangana High Court
Kethavath Devula And Anr vs The Ts Road Transport Corporation on 12 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
1957 of 2017
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated 01.03.2017 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.305 of 2014 by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants-petitioners preferred the present Appeal praying this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioners No.1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one Kethavath Narsimha Naik (hereinafter referred to as 2 'the deceased'), petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers, who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 23.11.2013.
04. According to the petitioners, on 23.11.2013 at about 11:30 AM., the deceased was proceeding on Motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 DU 4808 from Budwell in order to go to Kismathpur at Hyderabad, while the deceased was proceeding on the way near Kistammagutta within the limits of Budwel, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 3964 driven by its driver in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction from Kismathpur to Budwel side, came in a wrong route while overtaking another vehicle and dashed against the bike of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. A case in Crime No.952 of 2013 by the Police, Rajendranagar, and took up investigation and after completing the investigation, the Police laid charge sheet against the driver of the RTC bus under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3
05. As per the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and he completed M.A., B.Ed., and preparing for Group-I Examination at Hyderabad and also running private tuitions to school students and also giving lectures to the students and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributed the same to the petitioners. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their beloved younger brother and suffered mental agony.
06. Respondent filed counter denying rash and negligent driving by the driver of the RTC bus and the manner of occurrence of the accident. Further, the age, avocation was also denied. It is contended that the petitioners are not legal heirs of the deceased. It is further contended that the road at scene of offence is curve zigzag and narrow, the deceased unable to control his vehicle, dashed to the RTC bus and that there was negligence on the part of the deceased and that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4
07. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled:
i. Whether the accident had occurred on 23.11.2013 at 11:00 AM., at Kistamma Gutta near Budwel Village on Budwel to Kismathpur road at Hyderabad, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 3964 ?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation amount, if so, to what amount ?
iii. To what relief ?
08. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioners got examined petitioner No.1 as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A21. Ex.C1 and C2 are also marked. No oral or documentary was adduced by respondent.
09. Considering the claim of the petitioners and counter filed by respondent and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding a total compensation of Rs.12,01,400/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondent. 5
10. Challenging the quantum of compensation, appellants-petitioners have filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants-petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent. Perused the material available on record.
12. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants-petitioners is that though the appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A2, the learned Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously awarded meager amount towards compensation and that the learned Tribunal has not awarded future prospects and prayed to enhance the compensation amount.
13. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent-RTC has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court. 6
14. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the appellants-petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation amount in addition to the compensation amount granted vide Order and Decree dated 01.03.2017 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.305 of 2014 by the learned Tribunal?
P O I N T:
15. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
16. PW1 who is the elder brother of the deceased reiterated the contents of the claim application and got marked Ex.A1 to A21 and as he is not an eyewitness to the accident, he got examined PW2 who is eyewitness to the accident who deposed that he saw the offending vehicle RTC bus came at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to which the deceased died on the spot and PW2 gave information to the Police. It is further ascertained from PW2 that there was a small turning at scene of offence and if the vehicle come slowly there may not be any unforeseen incident. 7 Even though PW1 and PW2 are cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
17. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A21. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR and A4-Crime details form discloses that based on a complaint, a case in Crime No.952 of 2013 was registered by Police, Rajendranagar and they took up investigation and laid Ex.A5-Charge sheet filed against the driver of the RTC bus. Ex.A2- Postmortem examination report shows that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Ex.A3-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report shows that there was no mechanical defect in the RTC bus.
18. As regards the manner of accident is concerned, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW2 eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on 8 appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
19. Petitioners have also got examined PW3 is the Vice-Principal, Headmaster of the School who deposed that the deceased was being paid Rs.10,800/- per month in the year 2013 and issued Ex.A20-Salary Certificate and he also produced Ex.C1-Attendance register and Ex.C2- Acquittance register. Ex.A6 to A19 and A21 are the certificates of the deceased pertaining to educational qualifications, scholarship, karate.
20. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 23 years as per Ex.A6-SSC certificate and considering the evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.A20-Salary certificate, has taken income at the rate of Rs.10,800/- per month. Hence, after considering the age, educational qualifications and avocation of the deceased, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.12,01,400/-. 9 However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects and other conventional heads. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 40% i.e., Rs.4,320/- towards future prospects can duly be added thereto, which comes to Rs.15,120/- (Rs.10,800/- + Rs.4,320/-). Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,81,440/- (Rs.15,120x12). Since the deceased was a bachelor, after deducting half of the income (Rs.90,720/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2, the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.90,720/- (Rs.1,81,440/- - Rs.90,720/-).
1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 10
21. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 23 years at the time of fatal accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma (supra), the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Thus, applying the multiplier '18' to the annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.90,720/-, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,32,960/- (Rs.90,720/- x 18). In addition to that, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.16,65,960/-.
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.12,01,400/- is without including future prospects and conventional heads as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, the future prospects and conventional head are added and the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.16,65,960/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum. The enhanced 11 compensation amount shall be deposited by respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
23. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.12,01,400/- to Rs.16,65,960/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 12-FEB-2024 KHRM