Telangana High Court
Tsrtc, Rep By Its M.D., Hyderabad And Anr vs Sirigiri Aruna, Nizamabad And 4 Others on 1 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
805 OF 2017
J U D G M E N T:
Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13.10.2016 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.942 of 2012 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short "the Tribunal"), appellants- respondents preferred the present Appeal praying this Court to set aside the impugned Order.
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:
Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 filed a petition under Section 166(1)(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one Sirigiri Suresh, (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 09.10.2012. Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are children and petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased. 2
04. According to petitioners, on 09.10.2012 at about 06:10 AM., petitioner No.1 and the deceased were travelling in an Auto bearing No.AP 01 X 5345 from Mudhole towards Basar and when they reached near Saw Mill, Mudhole Village Shivar, Adilabad District, meanwhile one Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 3395 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came in high speed from opposite direction on wrong side and dashed against their auto, due to which auto was completely damaged and petitioner No.1 and the deceased sustained grievous injuries. The deceased died on the spot. The Police, Mudhole registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
05. According to petitioner, the deceased was aged 28 years and used to attend agriculture-cum-animal business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and used to contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, petitioners lost their bread winner and love and affection. Therefore, 3 petitioners filed claim petition against respondents-RTC claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
06. Before the Tribunal, respondents-RTC filed counter denying the claim of petitioners. Further contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of Auto bearing No. AP 01 X 5345 and that the compensation claimed by petitioners is very high and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
07. On behalf of petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondents, RW1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced.
08. Considering the claim of the petitioner and counter filed by respondents and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding a total compensation of Rs.9,13,500/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondents.
4
09. Challenging the same, respondents-RTC has filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants-respondents and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. Perused the material available on record.
11. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for appellants-RTC is that the learned Tribunal without proper evidence awarded huge compensation of Rs.9,13,500/- which is on higher side, by taking future prospects at 50% and awarding huge amount towards conventional heads and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of auto but not on the part of RTC bus driver. However, the learned Tribunal has not considered the said aspect. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned Order.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the learned Tribunal has 5 adequately granted reasonable and just compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
13. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned Order and Decree dated 13.10.2016 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.942 of 2012 by the learned Tribunal, is liable to be set aside?
P O I N T:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
15. PW1 who is the wife of the deceased, injured and eyewitness to the accident reiterated the contents of the claim application and deposed that on 09.10.2012 at about 06:10 AM., she along with her husband travelling in an Auto bearing No. AP 01 X 5345 from Mudhole towards Basar and when they reached near Saw Mill, Mudhole Village Shivar, Adilabad District, meanwhile one Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 3395 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came in high speed from opposite direction on wrong side and dashed against their auto, due to which auto was completely damaged and they sustained 6 grievous injuries and the deceased died while shifting to hospital.
16. RW1-driver of the RTC bus deposed that on 09.10.2012 when the bus was overtaking the lorry by giving signal, at about 06:00 PM., an Auto bearing No. AP 01 X 5345 proceeding from Mudhole towards Basar which was overloaded with passengers came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the front portion of the bus and that there is no rash and negligence on the part of RW1.
17. As regards the manner of accident is concerned, the Tribunal after evaluating the oral evidence of PW1- eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, has awarded compensation. It is pertinent to state that a perusal of Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police, Mudhole registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304- A of the Indian Penal Code and during the course of investigation inquest and postmortem examination was conducted vide Exs.A3 and A4 and after completion of 7 investigation Ex.A2-charge sheet was filed against the driver of the RTC bus. Exs.A3-Inquest report and A4- postmortem examination report discloses that the deceased died in road traffic accident. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for appellants that there is contributory negligence on the part of driver of Auto, is unsustainable, as the Police after thorough investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the RTC bus. 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.
18. Learned Standing counsel for appellants further argued that the learned Tribunal has awarded excess amount of compensation under the conventional heads and future prospects.
19. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the age as 29 years as per Ex.A4-PME report and the 8 deceased was attending agriculture work and doing animal business and as no documentary proof or examining any person to prove the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal has taken monthly income as Rs.3,000/-. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfering with the said finding of the Tribunal.
20. While calculating the compensation amount, the learned Tribunal has taken future prospects at the rate of 50%, further learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care, protection and guidance to petitioner Nos.2 to 4.
21. It is pertinent to state here that as the deceased was self-employed and aged below 40 years, 40% future prospects have to be taken into consideration and petitioners are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon), as per the guidelines 9 formulated by the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 and Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2.
22. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited 1st supra), 40% (Rs.1,200/-) towards future prospects can duly be added thereto. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/- x 12 being 40% towards future prospects). Since there are four dependents, after deducting 1/4th (Rs.12,600/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma case (cited 2nd supra), the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.37,800/- (Rs.50,400/- - Rs.12,600/-). As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 29 years at the time of fatal accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Varma (supra), the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Thus, applying the multiplier '17' to the annual loss 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 10 of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.37,800/-, the total 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs.6,42,600/- (Rs.37,800 x 17). In addition to that, petitioners are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). In addition thereof, petitioners No.2 to 4 who are minor children of the deceased and petitioner No.1 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- under the head of 'parental consortium' as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. Thus, in all, petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,39,600/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred only).
23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.9,13,500/- is at higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.8,39,600/-. In so far as interest is concerned, the compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 11 petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount, if not deposited by respondents, shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security, subject to payment of deficit Court fee. Petitioners shall pay deficit Court fee for Rs.39,600/- only. If the deficit Court fee is already deposited by petitioners for the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal, the difference Court fee shall be refunded to petitioners, after proper calculation and under proper acknowledgement.
24. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal reduced from Rs.9,13,500/- to Rs.8,39,600/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 01-MAR-2024 KHRM