Telangana High Court
M/S The Telangana State Road Transport ... vs P Yellamma on 10 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
No.1438 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded in the Order and Decree dated 31.01.2017 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.635 of 2015 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellant-respondent No.2 preferred the present appeal praying this Court to set aside the impugned Order and Decree.
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 the petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of one P. Parusuram, husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and son of petitioner No.4 (hereinafter 2 referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 12.09.2015.
04. According to the petitioners, on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding by walk from Uppal to Shanthinagar, on extreme left side of the road and reached Uppal Bus Stand, suddenly the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1716 which was proceeding in the same direction came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The Police, Uppal has registered a case in Crime No.882 of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of RTC Bus.
05. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 35 years and he used to work as labour and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and love and affection. Therefore, the petitioners filed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 & 2 3 claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on various heads.
06. Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte, the respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition, age, avocation of the deceased and further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is very high and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
07. Considering the claim of the petitioners and counter filed by respondent No.2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding a total compensation of Rs.16,70,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 & 2, jointly and severally.
08. Challenging the same, respondent No.2 has filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
09. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-respondent No.2 and the learned 4 counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. Perused the material available on record.
10. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-respondent No.2 is that the learned Tribunal without proper evidence awarded compensation of Rs.16,70,000/- which is on higher side and prayed this Court to allow this appeal by reducing the compensation amount by considering the guidelines formulated by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
12. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned Order and Decree dated 31.01.2017 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.635 of 2015 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is liable to be set aside?
P O I N T:
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
14. PW1 who is the wife of the deceased reiterated the contents of the claim application and got marked Ex.A1 to A7 as she is not an eyewitness to the accident, she got examined PW2 who is eyewitness to the accident who deposed that he was standing near Uppal Bus stand on 12.09.2015 at about 07:15 PM., the deceased who was walking on the left side of the road was hit by RTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1716 and died on the spot. During the course of cross-examination nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
15. 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 i.e., Exs.A1-FIR, A2-Charge sheet, A3-Scene of offence panchanama and A6-Motor 6 Vehicle Inspector's Report held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1716. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
16. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 35 years and taken income at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is pertinent to state that without filing any documentary proof or examining any person to prove the monthly income of the deceased, the monthly income taken by Tribunal is at higher side. Hence, considering the avocation of the deceased, this Court is inclined to interfering with the said finding of the Tribunal by decreasing the monthly income of the deceased from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. 7 Pranay Sethi and others 2 40% i.e., Rs.2,400/- towards future prospects can duly be added thereto, which comes to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-). Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.8,400x12). Since there are four dependents, after deducting 1/4th (Rs.25,200/-) 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 3, the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.1,00,800/- - Rs.25,200/-).
17. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 35 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 '16'. Thus, applying the multiplier '16' to the annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.75,600/-, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.75,600/- x 16). In addition to that, the petitioners are 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2009 (6) SCC 121 8 entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Further, the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 being the minor children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.80,000/- under the head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 4. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,66,600/-.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.16,70,000/- is higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.13,66,600/-. In so far as interest is concerned, the Order of the Tribunal is confirmed. The compensation amount, if not deposited by the respondents, shall be deposited 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. The petitioners shall pay deficit Court fee for Rs.1,66,600/- only. If the 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 9 deficit Court fee is already deposited by the petitioners for the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal, the difference Court fee shall be refunded to the petitioners, after proper calculation and under proper acknowledgement.
19. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.16,70,000/- to Rs.13,66,600/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 10-JAN-2024 KHRM