Apsrtc, Hyderabad vs Smt N. Latha, Chittoor Dist 4 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 74 AP

BVLNC                                               MACMA 1361 of 2016
Page 1 of 14                                        Dt: 04.01.2023




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1361 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC,

challenging the award dated 12.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.5/2014

on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Addl.District

Judge, Chittoor, (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal while

allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.12,73,000/- with

interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation

for the death of N.Raghu @ Raghavulu in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as

parties in the M.V.O.P.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an

application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the

Act") claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the

death of N.Raghu @ Raghavulu in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 12.09.2012.

4. The facts would show that the 1st petitioner is the wife,

petitioners No.2 to 4 are the children, petitioner No.5 is the mother of

the deceased N.Raghu @ Raghavulu. On 12.09.2012 at about BVLNC MACMA 1361 of 2016 Page 2 of 14 Dt: 04.01.2023

10.45 a.m. the deceased N.Raghu in order to attend his duty as a tiles

slab worker at Bangarupalem, while he was proceeding towards

Bangarupalem on extreme left side of road on his Bajaj Discovery

Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 03 AV 0343 and reached near

Tatappagaripalli at about 11.05 a.m., at that juncture, the driver of

APSRTC 2 Depot bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2381 belonging to the

respondent, and the driver of the said bus, drove the same in a high

speed, in rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the motor

cycle, and as a result, the right leg below the knee of deceased was cut

off, and also sustained other bodily injuries. Immediately, the

deceased was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Chittoor through 108

ambulance for treatment, but he died at about 12.00 noon due to fatal

injuries. A case in Cr.No.132/2012 was registered by Bangarupalem

P.S. for the offence punishable U/s.304-A and 338 of Indian Penal

Code against driver of the crime vehicle..

Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, and

was working as tiles slab worker and earning Rs.400/- per day. Due

to sudden death of deceased, the petitioners lost their sole bread

winner. The 1st petitioner is also suffering from loss of consortium.

The petitioners 2 to 4 are suffering from loss of parental care and BVLNC MACMA 1361 of 2016 Page 3 of 14 Dt: 04.01.2023

guidance, and petitioner No.5 is suffering from loss of love and

affection, and all the petitioners are suffering from loss of dependency.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC, filed counter,

while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of

accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime

vehicle, age, avocation and monthly income of the deceased, and

liability to pay compensation, and contended that the accident

occurred due to sole negligence of deceased. The claim of the

petitioners is very high and excessive.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2381 of the respondent?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, from whom and to what amount?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to

3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the

respondent/APSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

 BVLNC                                                     MACMA 1361 of 2016
Page 4 of 14                                              Dt: 04.01.2023

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to

3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6 held that the accident took place due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, and

further taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3

corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded a compensation of

Rs.12,73,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till

the date of realisation.

9. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC in the appeal is that

the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was occurred due to

rash and negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus, though the

deceased also contributed to the cause of accident. The other

contention of the APSRTC is that the Tribunal amount awarded by the

Tribunal towards compensation is excessive, and against the

established principles of law.

10. In the light of above contentions, the points that would arise for

consideration in the appeal are as under:

1. Whether there was negligence on the part of deceased also for occurrence of accident?

2. Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the established principles of law?

 BVLNC                                            MACMA 1361 of 2016
Page 5 of 14                                     Dt: 04.01.2023




3. To what relief?


11.     POINT No.1:

The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the accident was

occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The contention of the

claimants is that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the

driver of the APSRTC bus. The claimants in support of their case have

examined an eye witness to the accident, as P.W-2. She deposed that

she witnessed the accident and on 12.09.2012 at about 11.05 a.m. she

was grazing cows near Tatappagaripalli cross road, and she witnessed

the deceased was proceeding towards Bangarupalem side on his motor

cycle, and while so, an APSRTC bus came in opposite direction in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, and as a

result, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. In the cross-

examination, it was elicited that P.W-2 was standing at about four feet

distance from main road on left side, and she telephoned for the

ambulance. The appellant did not elicit anything to disbelieve her

testimony before the Tribunal.

12. The claimants filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 copy of charge

sheet in C.C.892/2012 on the file of III Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First

Class, Chittoor, Ex.A-3 copy of M.V.I.Report, Ex.A-4 copy of post BVLNC MACMA 1361 of 2016 Page 6 of 14 Dt: 04.01.2023

mortem certificate and Ex.A-5 copy of inquest report. It is an admitted

fact that the police registered Ex.A-1 FIR soon after the accident, and

after investigation, laid a police report (charge sheet) under Ex.A-2

against the driver of the APSRTC bus for the offence punishable

U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code. No contra evidence was produced by

the appellant/APSRTC. It did not choose to examine its driver to

speak about the way, in which the accident was occurred to establish

that the deceased also contributed to the cause of accident. In that

view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of

the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of

driver of the APSRTC bus. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13. POINT No.2:

The claimants' case is that the deceased was aged 30 years at

the time of accident and he was working as a tiles labour, and earning

Rs.400/- per day. The Tribunal considered the evidence of P.W-3

examined by the claimants. The evidence of P.W-3 discloses that he is

Manager of M/s.Sri Saipriya Tirumala Enterprises, Peddakalva,

G.D.Nellore, and the deceased was working as a slab worker in the

said firm, and he was paid Rs.400/- per day and to that effect, issued

Ex.A-6 stating that the said firm has been paying Rs.400/- per day to

the deceased. P.W-3 denied the suggestion of the appellant that the BVLNC MACMA 1361 of 2016 Page 7 of 14 Dt: 04.01.2023

deceased was not working in their firm, and that Ex.A-6 is not

supported by any other evidence. Except that, nothing in material was

elicited in the cross-examination of P.W-3 to disbelieve the evidence of

P.W-3. No contra evidence was produced by the appellant/APSRTC.

Considering the evidence of P.W-3 and Ex.A-6 certificate, the Tribunal

held that the claimants did not produce any connected registers, and

notionally fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per

month as he was a skilled labour. In that view of the matter, there are

no grounds to interfere with the income fixed by the Tribunal at

Rs.6,000/- per month.

14. The deceased was aged 30 years on the date of accident as per

case of the claimants. In Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet, his age was

mentioned as 30 years on the date of accident. In post mortem

certificate, his age was referred as 30 years. In the inquest report also,

his age was mentioned as 30 years. Considering the same, the

Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 30 years as on the date of

accident.

15. The Tribunal applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road BVLNC MACMA 1361 of 2016 Page 8 of 14 Dt: 04.01.2023

Transport Corporation and others1, deducted 1/4th of the income of

the deceased towards personal expenses, as there are five dependants

i.e., wife, three minor children and mother respectively, which would

comes to Rs.6,000 - 1,500 = Rs.4,500/- per month. The annual

income of the deceased would be Rs.4,500 x 12 = Rs.54,000/-. The

Tribunal applied the multiplier '17' as the deceased is aged 30 years by

the date of accident, and the loss of dependency would be Rs.54,000 x

17 = Rs.9,18,000/-. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds

to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of

dependency.

16. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards

transportation, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and

Rs.20,000/- towards loss of clothes and articles, and Rs.1,00,000/-

towards consortium, and Rs.2,00,000/- towards love and affection.

The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that as per judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi2, the claimants are entitled to only

Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate and Rs.40,000/- towards consortium by the wife.

    2009 ACJ 1298

    (2017) 16 SCC 680
 BVLNC                                                  MACMA 1361 of 2016
Page 9 of 14                                           Dt: 04.01.2023

17. It is pertinent to note down that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram

@ Chuhru Ram and others3 held in para 8.7 as follows:

"A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.

In legal parlance, consortium is a compendious term which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, and filial consortium.

The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relation with the deceased spouse. 3 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband−wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of company, society, co− operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation.

4 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child

2018 ACJ 2782 BVLNC MACMA 1361 of 2016 Page 10 of 14 Dt: 04.01.2023

causes great shock and agony to the parents and 3 Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 4 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5 the d. 1979) family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world−over have recognized that the value of a childs consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.

Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.

A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count5. However, there was no clarity with 5 Rajasthan High Court in BVLNC MACMA 1361 of 2016 Page 11 of 14 Dt: 04.01.2023

Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj);

Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & 6 Ors. respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.

The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under Loss of Consortium as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium."

As per the above judgment, the children of the deceased, who are

minors are also entitled to consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each, and the

amount entitled by the claimants is Rs.15,000 + 15,000 + 40,000 +

40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 = Rs.1,90,000/-.

18. Further, as per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, the

claimants are also entitled to loss of future prospects @ 40% of the

established income of the deceased towards future prospects and

where the deceased was below 40 years. If this is also taken into

consideration, the claimants may be entitled to the amount, more than BVLNC MACMA 1361 of 2016 Page 12 of 14 Dt: 04.01.2023

awarded by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the contention of

the appellant/APSRTC that the Tribunal awarded excessive

compensation, does not hold any force.

19. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of

petition, till the date of realisation. I do not find any ground to interfere

with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the

date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Ho'ble Apex

Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Mannat Johal4.

20. In the light of above discussion, the contention of the

appellant/APSRTC that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards

compensation is excessive, and not in accordance with the established

principles of law, is not correct. Accordingly, the point is answered.

21. POINT No.3: To what relief?

In the light of findings on points No.1 and 2, the appeal be

dismissed.

    2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)
 BVLNC                                            MACMA 1361 of 2016
Page 13 of 14                                     Dt: 04.01.2023

22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award

12.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.5/2014 on the file of Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Addl.District Judge, Chittoor.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

                                       _____________________________
                                        B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J
04.01.2023

psk
 BVLNC                                   MACMA 1361 of 2016
Page 14 of 14                            Dt: 04.01.2023

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

M.A.C.M.A.No.1361 OF 2016

4th January, 2023

psk