Telangana High Court
Apsrtc Now Tsrtc, vs U Mallamma on 29 February, 2024
• THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
• M.A.C.M.A.No.1225 of 2018
• AND
• CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.22 of 2022
•
• COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2015 passed in
O.P.No.254 of 2013, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda,
(for short, 'the Tribunal'), M.A.C.M.A.1225 of 2018 is filed by the
Respondents/TSRTC in O.P. seeking to allow the Appeal by setting
aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Also, being not satisfied with the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal, the Petitioner in O.P. filed Cross Objections No.22 of 2022 seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner, who is the wife of deceased-Pitchaiah, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.02.2012 at 8.15p.m. at Shettipalem bus stage. It is stated by the petitioner that on 20.02.2012, when the deceased, along 2 MGP,J MACMA.1225 of 2018 and X-obj.22 of 2022 with others, went to Annareddygudem Village to attend the death ceremony of their relatives in an Auto bearing No.AP-24-TA-3748 and while returning in the same Auto and when they reached Shettipalem bus-stage at about 8.15 PM, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7903 coming from Miryalaguda to go to Suryapet, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the opposite coming vehicle while turning towards Suryapet road. As a result, the deceased and other passengers in the Auto sustained injuries. As the deceased sustained multiple injuries, he was shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment and on the way, he died. As per the report given by Sri K.Saidulu, one of the injured, the Police of Vemulapally Police Station registered a case in Crime No.19 of 2012 under Section 337 IPC initially and subsequently after the death of the deceased, included Section 304-A IPC, conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7903. As stated by the petitioner, the deceased is an agriculturist and is having property of Ac.2.37 guntas besides doing dairy business and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. As the petitioner lost her breadwinner, as such, she filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, being the General Manager and Depot Manager of TSRTC.
3
MGP,J MACMA.1225 of 2018 and X-obj.22 of 2022
4. Respondent No.1 filed counter and denied the averments made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus Bearing No.AP-10Z- 7903, involvement of RTC Bus, age, occupation and income of the deceased and also contended that as the Auto was also involved in the accident, the driver, owner and insurance company should also be added as necessary parties to the petition and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the same. Respondent No.2 adopted the counter filed by Respondent No.1 by filing a memo.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
i. Whether the deceased died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7903?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation?
If so, what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and also got examined PW2, who is one of the injured traveling in the said Auto and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 on their behalf.
4
MGP,J MACMA.1225 of 2018 and X-obj.22 of 2022
7. On behalf of respondents, none of the witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
8. After considering the evidence and documents marked, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.4,96,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents in O.P. filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1225 of 2018 and the claim petitioner filed Cross Objections petition No.22 of 2022.
9. Heard the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Appellants-TSRTC as well as the learned counsel for the Respondent/petitioner in O.P./Cross-objector.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants - TSRTC is that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7903. He also contended that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of owner and insurer of Auto bearing No.AP-24TA- 3748 as necessary parties to the petition. He also contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding excess compensation towards conventional heads viz., loss of consortium, funeral expenses without following the principles established under law. 5
MGP,J MACMA.1225 of 2018 and X-obj.22 of 2022
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/cross- objector contended that though the petitioner had established her case by cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon documents marked under Exs.A1 to A10, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had awarded meager amount towards the income of the deceased. He also contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not granting future prospects to the deceased and hence prayed to allow the cross-objection petition by enhancing the compensation.
12. Now the points that emerge for consideration is,
(i) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
(i) Whether the cross-objector is entitled for enhancement of compensation?
Points-
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed by both sides. Petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents made in the claim application and also deposed about the manner of accident. As she is not an eye witness to the incident, she got examined PW2, who is one of the injured and also an eye witness for the alleged accident. He deposed that on 20.02.2012, when 6 MGP,J MACMA.1225 of 2018 and X-obj.22 of 2022 their Auto reached Shettipalem Bus stage, one RTC Bus coming from Miryalaguda came in a high speed and dashed the Auto. As such, they all sustained injuries. Further, the place of accident as per Ex.A2, shows that there are blood stains on the north side of the road and the Auto was stationed beside the road with damage on the front portion. Also as per the sketch appended to Ex.A1, it is observed that there are blood stains on the right side of the road towards Nalgonda. From the above, it is clear that the Bus, instead of going on the left side of the road to take turn to go to Bheemaram road, gone to the extreme right and dashed the auto which resulted in the accident and it is made clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. Moreover Ex.A7-Charge sheet clearly holds that the driver of the RTC Bus was responsible for the alleged accident.
14. From the evidence of PWs 1 & 2, coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A10, it is clear that there is contributory negligence on part of the driver of the RTC Bus which resulted in the alleged accident and caused death of the deceased. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing counsel for appellants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto is unsustainable and as there is no 7 MGP,J MACMA.1225 of 2018 and X-obj.22 of 2022 contribution on part of the driver of the Auto in the alleged accident. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal.
15. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that the learned Tribunal awarded excess amount under conventional heads without following the reasonable figures mentioned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & Ors. 1. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that as judgment cited supra, the amounts granted under various conventional heads are Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which in total comes to Rs.70,000/- (which carries 10% enhancement for every three years). But the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- under conventional heads which is excess. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding arrived by the learned Tribunal in respect of conventional heads and hereby reduces the amount towards conventional heads from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.70,000/-.
16. So far as cross-objection petition filed by the petitioner is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner had established her case by 1 2017(6)ALD170(SC) 8 MGP,J MACMA.1225 of 2018 and X-obj.22 of 2022 filing pattedar pass book showing that the deceased was having agricultural land, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had awarded meager amount towards the income of the deceased. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner, being the owner of more than one Acre, can cultivate her land even after the death of the deceased. Moreover, the petitioner had not filed any evidence to show that the deceased is having dairy business. Hence, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the income of an agricultural coolie, had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- which this Court finds reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.
17. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for cross- objector that the learned Tribunal erred in not granting future prospects to the deceased. This Court, upon considering the evidence and documents available on record, feels reasonable to grant future prospects towards the death of the deceased and hereby calculate the compensation as, the monthly income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal is Rs.4,000/-. As the age of the appellant at the time of accident was 48 years, he is entitled for addition of 25% towards future prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and 9 MGP,J MACMA.1225 of 2018 and X-obj.22 of 2022 others 2. Hence, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,000/-. So the yearly income comes to Rs.60,000/-. Since the claim petitioner alone is depending on the deceased, if 1/3rd amount is deducted towards his personal and living expenses, the total annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.40,000/-. Since the deceased was 48 years old at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3. Therefore, the total loss of income due to the death of the deceased comes to Rs.5,20,000/-. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.80,000/- under conventional charges which this Court interfered with the said finding and hereby reduced the same from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.70,000/- as per Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (cited supra) . Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,90,000/-.
18. In the result, MACMA.NO.1225 of 2018 filed by TSRTC is party allowed by reducing the amount awarded under conventional heads from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.70,000/- and the Cross-Objection petition No.22 of 2022 filed by the claim petitioner is allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 10 MGP,J MACMA.1225 of 2018 and X-obj.22 of 2022 Rs.4,96,000/- to Rs.5,90,000/-. The Cross Objector/petitioner shall pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The cross-objector shall withdraw the enhanced amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Dt.29.02.2024 ysk