Telangana High Court
G.Manjula Reddy vs The Ap State Road Transport Corporation on 13 February, 2024
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
[
M.A.C.M.A.No.2779 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012 passed in MVOP No.598 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal).
2. The claimants are the wife and mother of the deceased late G. Srinivas Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. The contention of the claimants was that the deceased was aged 41 years, he was a A1 Class Contractor and was earning Rs.26,000/- per month by the date of the accident. He was an income tax assessee and submitting his returns to the Income Tax Department. On 22.08.2010 between 3.00 PM to 3.30 PM, while the deceased was proceeding on his Hero Honda Passion Plus Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TS 29 BH 1617 from 2 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.2779 of 2012 Cherlapally to Dilsukhnagar through Tarnaka and when reached near HMT Bearings Company, Moulali, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 937 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, hit the motor cycle of the deceased from its behind, due to which he fell down and the bus ran over the head of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. The police of Malkajgiri P.S., registered a case in Crime No.331 of 2010 for the offence under Section 304A IPC against the driver of the RTC bus. The petitioners claimed compensation from the respondents 1 and 2, the Managing Director and the Depot Manager of APSRTC, Kushaiguda Bus Depot.
3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter calling for strict proof of the petition averments. They contended that the claim of the claimants for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- was highly excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate and the same was not in accordance with the norms and settled precedents.
4. The Tribunal framed the issues and caused enquiry.
5. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got examined an eye witness to the accident as PW.2 and got marked 3 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.2779 of 2012 Exs.A1 to A22 in support of her contention. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.
6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident took place solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and held the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. With regard to the quantum of compensation though the claimants filed income tax returns for the annual years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, marked under Exs.A15 and A16 and the copy of the TDS certificates dated 18.02.2008, marked under Ex.A17 and the copies of the income tax returns for the annual years 2009-2010 marked under Ex.A20, the income tax returns for the annual year 2007-2008 marked as Ex.A21 and the income tax returns for the annual year 2008-2009 marked under Ex.A22, had not considered the same as neither the Auditor or any Accountant of the deceased, or any person associated with the business and income returns of the deceased was examined, and considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- and the annual income as Rs.1,20,000/- and 4 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.2779 of 2012 deducted 1/3rd of his income towards his personal and living expenses and determined the annual contribution to his family as Rs.80,000/-. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 41 years as per his driving licence marked under Ex.A19 and applied multiplier '14' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1 and calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.11,20,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant No.1, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.11,40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum to the claimants.
7. Aggrieved by the said award and decree dated 18.01.2012, the claimants preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.26,000/- by discarding Exs.A11 to A22 by placing reliance on the judgment reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohd. Khaja 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.2779 of 2012 Rasool Sayyed and Mohd. Khajamain Shaikh 2 . The said judgment pertained to medical certificates and medical bills which were required to be proved by examining the doctor, who issued the same, but in the instant case, the income tax returns and other documents marked as Ex.A11 to A22 were issued by the Income Tax Department which were not required to be proved by examining any witness since there was no dispute by the respondents with regard to the above said documents. The deceased was a Class-V contractor of Roads and Buildings. His income tax returns would clearly establish that he was having a monthly income of Rs.26,000/- as such, the court ought to have awarded the compensation keeping in view the future prospects. The Tribunal awarded meager amounts towards loss of estate and consortium and prayed to allow the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents - TSRTC. 2 2003 (5) ALD 162 6 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.2779 of 2012
9. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anjali and Others v. Lokendra Rathod and others 3, wherein it was held that:
9. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased's income by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had filed the Income Tax Return (2009-2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased's annual income to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/-
per month. This Court in Malarvizhi & Ors.
(Supra) has reaffirmed that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi (Supra), this Court has laid as under:
"10. ...We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to 3 2023 (1) ALD 107 SC 7 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.2779 of 2012 determine the annual income of the deceased."
10. On a perusal of the record, it would disclose that the claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and filed the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A22. The documents marked under Exs.A11 to A22 would disclose that the deceased was a Class-V contractor of Roads and Buildings and he was submitting his income tax returns regularly to the department. The claimants filed income tax returns for the annual year 2002-2003 under Ex.A15, for the annual year 2003-2004 under Ex.A16, for the annual year 2007-2008 under EX.A21, for the annual year 2008-2009 under Ex.A22 and for the annual year 2009-2010 under Ex.A20. The Tribunal, while considering these documents observed that they bear the stamp of the Income Tax Department. But, considering that no Auditor or any other person like Accountant associated with the business of the deceased was examined, failed to take them into consideration.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the claimants in Anjali and Others v. 8
Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.2779 of 2012 Lokendra Rathod and others (3 supra) relying upon its earlier judgment in Malaarvizihi and others v. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 4 observed that the income tax returns are statutory documents and reliance shall be placed upon the same wherever they were available for computation of annual income of the deceased. As such, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income tax returns filed by the claimants for determining the annual income of the deceased. The date of accident was on 22.08.2010. The income tax returns for the annual year 2009-2010 marked under Ex.A20 would disclose that the deceased had shown a gross total income of Rs.3,12,845/- per annum and for the annual year 2008-2009 marked under Ex.A22, he had shown his income as Rs.4,53,981/- and for the annual year 2007-2008 marked under Ex.A21, the gross total income was shown as Rs.1,98,500/-. As such, his average income can be taken as Rs.3,21,775/-.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 5 held that while determining the income of the deceased, an additional income has to be added 4 2020 (1) ALD 109 SC 5 2017 (16) SCC 680 9 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.2779 of 2012 towards future prospects even in the case of the deceased, who were self employed or on a fixed salary, towards their future prospects. Hence, considering the age of the deceased as 41 years, an addition of 25% has to be added towards future prospects. As such, the income of the deceased including his future prospects for the purpose of calculation can be taken as Rs.4,02,219/- per annum (Rs.3,21,775/- + Rs.80,444/- (25% of Rs.3,21,775/-)). After deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, his contribution to his family can be taken as Rs.2,68,146/- per annum (Rs.4,02,219/- minus Rs.1,34,073/- (1/3rd of Rs.4,02,219/-)). Hence, the loss of dependency can be calculated as Rs.2,68,146/- x 14 = 37,54,044/-.
13. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (5 supra), both the claimants are also entitled for the loss of consortium with an enhancement @10% in a span of 3 years. As such, both the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium. The claimants are also entitled to loss of estate and funeral expenses for an amount of Rs.16,500/- 10
Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.2779 of 2012 each with an increment of 10% for every three years. As such, the compensation entitled by the claimants under various heads is as follows:
Loss of dependency :Rs.37,54,044/-
Spousal consortium :Rs. 44,000/-
Filial consortium :Rs. 44,000/-
Loss of estate :Rs. 16,500/-
Funeral expenses :Rs. 16,500/-
-------------------------------
Total Rs.38,75,044/-
-------------------------------
14. Though the claimants claimed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation, as there is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claim amount as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others 6 and Ramla and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others 7 , it is considered fit to enhance the compensation from Rs.11,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.38,75,044/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the enhanced amount.
6 2003 (2) SCC 274 7 2019 ACJ 559 11 Dr.GRR,J MACMA No.2779 of 2012
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.11,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.38,75,044/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after deducting the amount already deposited, if any. On such deposit, the claimants are directed to withdraw the same in the same proportion as decided by the Tribunal, subject to deposit of the court fee on the amount awarded more than the claim amount.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J February 13, 2024 KTL