Shaik Nagul Meera vs The Ap State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1664 AP

                                                   MACMA.NO.1230 of 2012

                                  1



     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.1230 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

The appellant is claimant in M.V.O.P.No.1472 of 2010 on

the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Addl. District Judge, Family Court, at Guntur, and the

respondent is the respondent in the said case.

2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are

arrayed in the claim application.

3. The Claimant has filed a Claim Petition under section 166

of MV Act and Rules 455 and 476 of APMV Rules, for claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of Shiak Gorie

Bee (herein in after referred to as 'the deceased') in a Motor

Vehicle accident that occurred on 27.07.1991 at about 06:20

A.M.

4. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The deceased was aged about 20 years and the deceased

was his wife and she used to earn Rs.100/- per day as coolie.

MACMA.NO.1230 of 2012

On 27.07.1991 at about 06:20 a.m., while the deceased was

going on the left side of the road margin, the driver of the RTC

bus bearing No.AA Z 7404 while driving the same in a rash and

negligent manner, hit her from behind near Zinkalagudem

Village, as a result, she sustained severe injuries and died

instantaneously.

5. Respondent filed written statement contending that the

respondent/corporation paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the

petitioner towards full and final settlement for the death of the

deceased taking into consideration of her age and executed o

indemnity bond. He denied the manner of the accident, alleged

injuries caused to death, age, occupation and income of the

deceased. The petitioner has not filed any legal heir certificate

to prove that he is only the legal heir of the deceased. Further

it is contended that there is no negligence on the part of driver

of the RTC Bus.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AA Z 7404?

MACMA.NO.1230 of 2012

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, from whom?

3) To what relief?

8. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 was examined and

marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondent, RW1 was

examined and marked Exs.B1 to B4.

9. Basing on the material on record, the Tribunal held that

the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

driver of the RTC bus and awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/-

together with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of

the petition against the respondent. Aggrieved by the same the

present appeal is preferred by claimant for enhancement of

compensation.

10. Now, the point for consideration are:

1) Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

2) Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

POINT NO. 1 & 2:

11. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, the claimant

is examined as PW1. PW1, is the husband of the deceased and MACMA.NO.1230 of 2012

the deceased died in a road accident on 27.07.1999, he is not

an eye witness to the accident, Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR,

Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet, coupled with the evidence

of PW1 clearly goes to show because of the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AA Z 740, the

accident is occurred. The said finding given by the Tribunal

below, the respondent did not challenge the said finding.

Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding

given by the Tribunal.

12. The petitioner claimed an amount under various heads,

the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased was

not a dependent on the deceased. This Court perused the

evidence on record, as per the evidence of PW1, his wife was

aged about 20 years and she was an agricultural coolie and

used to earn Rs.100/- per day on the date of her death and as

per the own admission of PW1, he is also doing coolie work and

get Rs.90/- to Rs.100/- per day. The case of the claimant is

that his paltry income is not sufficient maintain the family and

he use to depend upon the earnings of the deceased also and MACMA.NO.1230 of 2012

because of the sudden death of the deceased in a road accident

he lost the dependency.

13. RW1, who is a Deputy Superintendent, in APSRTC

admits in cross-examination that the petitioner is the only legal

representative of the deceased and the deceased was aged

about at 20 years by the date of death. Therefore, in view of the

above reasons the petitioner is dependent on the earning of the

deceased. As per the case of the petitioner the deceased was

used to earn Rs.100/- per day. Here the accident was occurred

in the year 1991, therefore, in those days an ordinary coolie

can easily earn Rs.50/- per day, therefore, monthly Income of

the deceased taken up as Rs.1,500/-per month and from out

of which amount 1/3rd has deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased, net income available to the claimant

is Rs.1,000/-[Rs.1,500/- (-) Rs.500/-], Rs.1000x12=12,000/-,

and the annual income of the deceased is Rs.12,000. As per

the own admission of the RW1, the deceased was aged about

20 years as per the Ex.A3 postmortem report, the deceased was

aged about 20 years by the date of accident. As per decision of

Smt. Smt. Sarala Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport MACMA.NO.1230 of 2012

Corporation and another1, the multiplier applicable to the age

group of the deceased is '18'. Therefore,

Rs.12,000x18=Rs.2,16,000/-. The learned Tribunal has

granted Rs.5,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses and

Rs.5,000/- awarded towards transportation expenses, no

appeal is filed against the said finding. Therefore, the claimant

is entitled the said amount of Rs.10,000/- in total the claimant

is entitled Rs.2,26,000/-

As per the evidence on record the respondent Corporation

paid Rs.40,000/- to the claimant towards Interim relief, Ex.B3

supports the same, therefore from out of Rs. 2,26,000/-, the

said amount of Rs.40,000/- has to be deducted, it comes to Rs.

1,86,000/- (Rs. 2,26,000-40,000) the appellant/claimant is

entitled an amount of Rs. 1,86,000/- towards compensation.

14. Therefore, the award dated 30.06.2011 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1472 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Vehicle

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Addl. District Judge, Family

Court, at Guntur is modified.

2009 (4) SCJ 91 MACMA.NO.1230 of 2012

15.. In the result appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the

compensation from an amount Rs.20,000/- to Rs.1,86,000/-

with interest of 6% P.A. as awarded by the Tribunal against the

respondent/APSRTC. Out of the enhanced compensation

amount with accrued interest, the petitioner is entitled to

withdraw the enhanced compensation amount with interest,

the respondent/APSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced

compensation within one (1) month from the date of the

judgment.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal

shall stand closed.

______________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated:23.03.2023.

KNN