Telangana High Court
Apsrtc, Hyderabad vs K Rajaiah, Karimnagar Dist And 1 Other on 22 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
62 OF 2016
J U D G M E N T:
Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 17.06.2015 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.772 of 2012 (impugned Order) by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar (for short "the Tribunal"), appellant-RTC 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 filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Sri Kotte Venkatesham (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 11.07.2012. Petitioner is the father of the deceased.2
04. According to petitioner, on 11.07.2012 at about 03:00 PM., the deceased after attending the counseling in M.A. Telugu at Sathavahana P.G. College, Karimnagar, he was crossing the road situated under manair bridge, in the meanwhile RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 3632 of Husnabad Depot (herein after referred as 'the crime vehicle') being driven by respondent No.1-driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from Husnabad to Karimnagar, dashed the deceased resulting in bleeding injuries to his head and he died on the spot. The Police, Karimnagar Traffic registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2012 for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle.
05. According to petitioner, the deceased was aged 29 years and he had a bright future with good academic qualifications and that he would have got very good job and earn lakhs of rupees. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioner lost his only son and petitioner at his old age has to lead a destitute life. Therefore, the petitioner filed claim petition against respondent No.1- driver of the crime vehicle, respondent No.2 is the 3 registered owner i.e. RTC, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
06. Respondents have filed counters denying the claim of petitioner, denying the manner of accident, earnings of the deceased. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and that the compensation claimed by petitioners is very high and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
07. On behalf of petitioner, PW1 was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of respondents, RW1 was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents.
08. Considering the claim of petitioner and counters filed by respondents and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding a total compensation of Rs.06,35,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondents. 4
09. Challenging the same, appellant-RTC has preferred this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-RTC and Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-claimant. Perused the material available on record.
11. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-RTC is that the learned Tribunal without proper evidence on record awarded huge compensation towards compensation which is on higher side. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal awarded huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards conventional heads. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned Order.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent-claimant has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted reasonable and just compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
5
13. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned Order passed 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 father of the deceased reiterated the contents of the claim application. Apart from adducing oral evidence, PW1 got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police, Karimnagar Traffic registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2012 for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle and during the course of investigation inquest and postmortem examination was conducted vide Exs.A4 and A5 and further prepared Ex.A7-Form No.54 and Ex.A2-crime details form, after completion of investigation Ex.A3-charge sheet was filed against the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A6-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report disclose that there are no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle.
6
16. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW1 who reiterated the contents of his counter and deposed that the deceased tried to commit suicide by falling under a lorry but when public stopped him, he came and fell under the crime vehicle. He did not lodge any complaint alleging that the deceased attempted to commit suicide. Even in the counter, he did not mention about the deceased attempt to commit suicide.
17. As regards the manner of accident is concerned, the learned Tribunal after evaluating the oral evidence of PW1, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Even Ex.A3-charge sheet discloses that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Further, the claim petitioner was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, as the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle is proved, the learned Tribunal has proceeded to award compensation in accordance with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, this Court is 7 not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the learned 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. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 29 years and that as the deceased was non-earning member the learned Tribunal has taken notional annual income at Rs.30,000/- and ultimately, granted an amount of Rs.5,10,000/-. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfering with the said finding of the Tribunal.
19. While calculating the final compensation amount, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, love and affection and dependency etc., and further awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral charges, which is against the guidelines formulated by the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company 8 Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1. Therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal to that effect are hereby set aside. Hence, petitioner is entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon) instead of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, love and affection and dependency etc., and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral charges, as per settled principle of law laid down in Pranay Sethi case (cited supra). Thus, in all, petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,43,000/- towards compensation.
20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.06,35,000/- is at higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.05,43,000/-. 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 petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount, if not deposited by respondents, shall be deposited within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such 1 2017 ACJ 2700 9 deposit, petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security, subject to payment of deficit Court fee. Petitioner shall pay deficit Court fee for Rs.43,000/- only. If the deficit Court fee is already deposited by petitioner for the compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal, the difference Court fee shall be refunded to petitioner, after proper calculation and under proper acknowledgement.
21. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal reduced from Rs.06,35,000/- to Rs.05,43,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 22 -NOV-2024 KHRM