Telangana High Court
Tsrtc And Another vs Gore Kedari, Nizamabad Dist And 4 Others on 10 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.794 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against order and decree dated 20.10.2016 in O.P.No.319 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The said O.P. filed by the petitioners therein seeking compensation for death of one K. Gore Balaji (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of respondents/RTC before the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are children of the deceased. On 24.11.2015 at about 06:30 P.M., while the deceased and another person were going to Navipet, when they reached near Nehru Park Chowrastha, Nizamabad, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 763 driven in rash and negligent manner came in high speed and 2 MGP,J MACMA_794_2017 dashed the deceased, due to which, the accident occurred and the deceased fell down on the road, sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries, on the way to Hospital at Hyderabad. In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.30 of 2015 against the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 763 on the file of Traffic Police Station Nizamabad.
4. It is further case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged about 54 years as on the date of the accident and was earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month by doing mutton business. He was hale and healthy and contributing his earnings to the petitioners for maintenance of the family. Hence, the petitioners filed the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents.
5. The respondents filed their written statement denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the accident did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the RTC bus. Further, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against them.
3
MGP,J MACMA_794_2017
6. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was got marked.
7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the petitioners have successfully established their case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of the respondents.
8. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellants/RTC. Despite service of notice, none appeared and there is no representation for respondents/petitioners.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants/RTC is that the Tribunal without proper evidence has awarded compensation, which is on higher side. It is also contended that without any income proof the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. Further, it is also contended that the Tribunal has granted higher 4 MGP,J MACMA_794_2017 amount under the conventional heads. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and decree.
10. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as granted by the Tribunal?"
Point:-
11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties. On behalf of petitioners, the wife of the deceased i.e., petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 reiterating contents of the claim petition and she deposed about the manner of the accident and death of the deceased. As P.W.1 is not eyewitness to the accident, she got examined P.W.2, who is the eyewitness. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that he along with the deceased was proceeding towards Bodhan Bus stand, Nizamabad, to go to Navipet village, to purchase goats and at that time, the accident occurred. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 denied that suggestion that he was not accompanying the deceased at the time of the accident and that he has not witnessed the accident and that the crime bus was not involved in the accident.
5
MGP,J MACMA_794_2017
12. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1, the driver of crime bus was examined and he deposed that on 24.01.2015 at about 06:30 AM, while he was coming from Depot-II to go to main bus stand of Nizamabad, he found two persons lying on the middle of the road at the Circle of Nehru Park road in front of Big 'C' Mobile cell phones shop. He further deposed that with the help of the driver of another bus namely S.B.Singh, they moved the said persons lying on the road to the side of the road and he went ahead with the bus, as such, no accident took place with his bus and that for wrongful gain, the present claim petition is filed. In proof of same, R.W.1 filed Ex.B-1, which is certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.279 of 2015 dated 19.08.2016 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. In the cross- examination, R.W.1 admitted that police filed charge sheet against him. He denied the suggestion that he confessed before the police that the accident occurred due to his negligence and that he was acquitted on technical grounds, though he is responsible for the accident.
13. It is undisputed fact that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. Ex.A-1-First Information Report shows that the case 6 MGP,J MACMA_794_2017 has been registered in Crime No.30 of 2015 and police took up investigation and after completion of investigation charge sheet under Ex.A-2 was filed against R.W.1, who is driver of the RTC bus. Ex.A-3 is inquest report and Ex.A-4 is postmortem examination report, which clearly show that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to accident and death of the deceased in such accident. Hence, the Tribunal after considering the above aspects has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus.
14. It is pertinent to state that though, the respondents have filed Ex.B-1 certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.279 of 2015 showing the acquittal of the accused therein i.e., R.W.1, the same will not bind on the present case as the same is civil case. Therefore, Ex.B-1, which is relied upon by the respondents cannot be considered and the said aspect was rightly considered by the Tribunal.
15. Now, coming to the aspect of compensation, as per the petitioners the deceased was aged about 54 years as on the date of the accident. However, Ex.A-4 postmortem examination report 7 MGP,J MACMA_794_2017 shows the age of the deceased as 58 years. The petitioners have not filed any document to prove that the age of the deceased is 54 years. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly considered the age of the deceased as 58 years based on Ex.A-4 postmortem examination report. Further, though, the petitioners contended that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month doing mutton business, no proof of earnings is filed. Hence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and further, as dependants are five in number 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses and considering the appropriate multiplier i.e., 9, the Tribunal calculated compensation and arrived at loss of dependency of Rs.4,05,000/-.
16. Furthermore, as seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is on higher side. Therefore, this Court relying upon the decision of Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 1, is inclined to grant an 1 2017 ACJ 2700 8 MGP,J MACMA_794_2017 amount of Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Hence, in all the total quantum of compensation comes to Rs.4,82,000/-.
17. Coming to the interest part, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable interest on the compensation amount and interference of this Court is unwarranted.
18. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by reducing the compensation from Rs.5,30,000/- to Rs.4,82,000/- and rest of the findings in order and decree dated 20.10.2016 in O.P.No.319 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad, are hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 10.01.2024 GVR