Telangana High Court
Ameena Begum And Another vs Apsrtc Rep. By Dm, Ibrahimpatnam Depot, ... on 10 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.3966 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 10.08.2005 in O.P.No.404 of 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and learned standing counsel for the Corporation and perused the entire material on record.
3. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the Tribunal though arrived at compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- had fixed the contributory negligence at 50% on the deceased and granted compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment in favour of claimant No.1.
4. The deceased is the unmarried son of claimant No.1 and brother of claimant No.2.
5. According to the version of the claimants, on 28.03.2001, the deceased was going on a motorcycle and when he reached near High Luck cross roads light signal, he saw one auto rickshaw which was going ahead of him and its driver suddenly applied brakes and in order to avoid collision KS, J MACMA_3966_2008 2 with auto rickshaw, the deceased swerved his motorcycle towards right side, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and ran over by RTC bus which was coming in the opposite direction.
6. The Tribunal found that since the deceased fell down for whatever reason, there was contributory negligence on his part and accordingly granted 50% of the amount on the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that though the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal erred in considering the income at Rs.3,000/- per month and granted compensation accordingly. Learned counsel requested the Court to consider the income at Rs.5,000/- per month and grant compensation.
8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the Corporation would submit that even according to the facts of the case, the deceased had come before the bus on the wrong side. In the said circumstances, there cannot be any fault on the part of the RTC bus driver and accordingly direction of the Tribunal to pay compensation has to be set aside.
9. Having gone through the record, it is no doubt true that the deceased skid and fell in front of the RTC bus. The RTC bus driver should have been vigilant enough since it would be visible to him regarding the KS, J MACMA_3966_2008 3 vehicles moving on the road. However, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
10. It was adduced during the course of evidence that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by running a readymade garments shop. Since no supporting documents regarding his employment were produced, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. However, future prospects were not considered while computing the compensation.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 1 has held that while considering the compensation in cases of death, the future prospects of the self employed shall also be considered. Having regard to the age of deceased below 40 years as on the date of accident and occupation as self-employed, if 40 percent of the income is included as future prospects, the monthly income would come to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000+1,200). As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v Delhi Transport Corporation2, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor which comes to Rs.2,100/-. Thus the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be of Rs.25,200/- (Rs.2,100X12). Though the claimants has stated the age of the deceased as 23 years, the learned 1 2017 (6) 170 (SC) 2 2009(6) SCC 121 KS, J MACMA_3966_2008 4 Tribunal on considering the evidence and material on record, has taken the age of mother i.e. 60 years while computing the compensation. As per Schedule II of the Act, the relevant multiplier for the said age is '9'. Thus, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,26,800/- (Rs.25,200 X 9).
12. As regards the consortium to be paid, claimant No.1 is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Pranay Sethi (2 Supra). With regard to the funeral expenses and loss of estate, she is entitled for Rs.33,000/-.
13. Therefore, the claimant No.1 is awarded the compensation as below:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.2,26,800
(2) Funeral expenses and Loss of Estate Rs.33,000
Loss of Estate
(3) Loss of filial consortium Rs.88,000(for 1st claimant)
Total compensation awarded Rs.3,47,800/-
14. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.3,47,800/-. By applying the ratio of contributory KS, J MACMA_3966_2008 5 negligence at 50:50 of the bus driver and the deceased, the claimant No.1 is entitled compensation of Rs.1,73,900/- as hereunder:
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The respondent shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimant No.1 is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the security.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 10.07.2024 gvl