Rs.4 vs Delhi Transport Corporation And
2023 Latest Caselaw 3408 AP

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                M.A.C.M.A.No.2910 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 29.07.2013

passed in M.V.O.P.No.434 of 2008, on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I

Additional District Judge, Chittoor, whereby the claim of

Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded towards compensation to the

claimants, this instant appeal was filed against the award

passed by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the

present appeal will be referred as they are arrayed before

the Tribunal.

3. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may be briefly

stated as follows:-

On 04.07.2008, the deceased Lakshmaiah, along with

his father-in-law Markondaiah got down from a jeep at

P.C.R.Junction at about 6.45 a.m., to go to Chittoor Bus

Stand, while they were passing in front of the Shoe Market

near P.C.R.Junction, at that time, the driver of the bus

bearing No.AP03 4 X 1282 drove it in a rash and negligent

manner by coming in opposite direction and ran over the

thighs of the said Lakshmaiah and caused severe bleeding

injuries of the deceased was immediately shifted to

Government Hospital, Chittoor, for treatment, where he

died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. In respect

of the same, a case was registered in Crime No.74 of 2008

under Section 304-A I.P.C., by the Station House Officer,

Traffic Police Station, Chittoor.

4. The respondent is the owner of the bus and the

vehicle is not insured. The respondent filed written

statement with a plea that there is no negligence on the

part of the driver of the bus and due to negligence of the

deceased himself, he died in a road accident.

5. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the

Tribunal framed following issues are settled for trial:

i) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP 03 X 1282?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom?

6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the

petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked as

Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondent, R.W-1 is

examined and no documents are marked on his behalf.

7. At the culmination of the enquiry, on appreciation of

the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimants with costs and

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved against the

said order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent filed the

present appeal.

8. Heard the both learned counsel.

9. Now the point for determination is:

1. "Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference?"

POINT:

10. The contention of the claimants is that due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the bus only the

accident occurred.

11. P.W-1 is not an eye witness to the accident P.W-2

deposed in his evidence that he was present along with the

deceased at the time of the accident. He deposed about

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending

vehicle. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence of

P.W-2 came to a conclusion that his evidence is

trustworthy. The material on record reveals that

immediately after the accident, a complaint was lodged

against the driver of the offending bus and FIR was also

registered against him. The Station House Officer, Chittor

Police Station, investigated the case and after completion

of investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the

offending bus fixing the liability on him. Therefore, the

material on record clearly reveals that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending bus only and in the said accident the

deceased died. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the entire

material on record, came to the conclusion that the death

of the deceased Lakshmaiah was occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing

No.AP03 4 X 1282 belongs to the respondent. I do not find

any legal flaw or infirmity in the above finding given by the

Tribunal.

12. Coming to the compensation, the Tribunal came to

conclusion that the claimants are entitled for an amount of

Rs.4,30,000/- towards total compensation, but claim is

restricted to Rs.4,00,000/- as the claimants claimed

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-only. In order to prove the

earnings of the deceased, the petitioners relied upon the

evidence of P.W-3. The Tribunal held in its order that the

accident occurred in the year 2008 and in those days an

ordinay coolie can easily earn an amount of Rs.150/- per

day. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, by

giving cogent reasons, the Tribunal arrived monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month i.e.,

Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal deducted 1/4th

amount towards personal expenses of the deceased since

the dependents on the deceased are 6 in number.

Therefore, contribution to the family would comes to

Rs.27,000/-per annum. At the time of the death, the

deceased was aged about 40 years. The Ex.A-2 inquest

report and Ex.A-5 postmortem report reflects the deceased

was aged about 40 years. Therefore, as per the decision of

Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another1, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group

of the deceased is '15' Therefore, by applying the multiplier '15'

the amount of the compensation payable to the claimants

towards loss of dependency is Rs.27,000/- x 15 = Rs.4,05,000/-

which is awarded by the Tribunal. Further, an amount of

Rs.10,000/- was awarded to the 1st petitioner towards loss of

consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/-

towards funeral expenses. As stated supra, even though the

claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,30,000/-, the

Tribunal restricted the claim up to Rs.4,00,000/-only since the

claimants claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-only. No cross

objections are filed by the claimants against the said finding.

2009ACJ 1298

13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any legal flaw or

infirmity in the finding given by the Tribunal that the claimants

are entitled compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the

respondent. Coming to the interest aspect, the Tribunal

awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The accident is

occurred in the year 2008. Therefore, I find the interest of 7.5%

awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The same has to be

reduced to at the rate of 6% per annum. The award and order

dated 29.07.2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor,

is modified by reducing the rate of interest from 7.5% per

annum to 6% per annum. The order of the Tribunal in all

other respects shall remain intact.

14. In the result, the Appeal is disposed of. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

____________________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 13.07.2023 CVD