Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Chimmili Rajini on 8 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
M.A.C.M.A.No.276 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay)
This Appeal is filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation
questioning the Order and Decree dated 27.12.2021 passed in
M.V.OP.No.331 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV
Additional District Judge, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred
to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The claimants are the mother, wife and children of one Chimmili
Raveendra Babu (hereinafter called as 'deceased') had filed MVOP
claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased. It is
their case that when the deceased reached opposite to RTC Bus Stand
in-gate, Kavali Town on 02.03.2018, the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus
bearing No.AP 27 Z 0260 attached to Giddaluru Depot drove the bus in
a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the bike
of the deceased. As a result, the deceased died on the spot.
4. A case in Crime No.52/2018 was registered for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the RTC Bus
bearing No.AP 27 Z 0260.
5. The Respondent No.1/Driver of the RTC Bus bearing
No.AP 27 Z 0260 remained ex parte. The Respondent
No.2/A.P.S.R.T.C filed their Counter by denying the averments
mentioned in the petition and further refuted negligence on the part of
Driver of A.P.S.R.T.C., bus. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition
with costs.
6. In the course of examination on behalf of claimants,
P.Ws1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked and on
behalf of A.P.S.R.T.C, RW.1 was examined and no documents were
marked.
7. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus bearing No.AP 27 Z 0260 by
1st respondent and whether it resulted in death of Chimmili
Raveendra Babu alias Chimmili Raveendra Babu or not?
2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part
of the deceased in riding his motor cycle bearing No.AP 26 AL 9910
and if so owner and insurer of above said motor cycle are
necessary parties to this proceedings or not?
8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal while answering Issue Nos.1 & 2 held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC. As
regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal had adopted
Rs.15,000/- as the income of the deceased and compensation was
calculated by enhancing the same by 40% following the case in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
others1. Hence the present Appeal is filed.
9. Heard Sri Solomon Raju, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and
Sri K. Siva Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Respondents.
10. The sole ground of the Counsel for the appellant is that there is
no proof of income filed by the petitioner and in the absence of any
proof of income, the income @ Rs.15,000/- per month is excessive.
The Counsel for the respondent-claimant argued that the income @
Rs.15,000/- cannot be said to be improbable considering the evidence
on record.
11. The Exs.A.9 to Ex.A.16 disclose that the deceased was having
agricultural wet land to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents and as per Exs.A.7
& A.8, he was also doing business in the name and style of Venkata
2017 SCC OnLine 1270
Sai Footwear at Miriyalguda Town. The Municipal Miscellaneous Bill
issued by the Commissioner, Miriyalguda marked as Ex.A.10
establishes the same. The Bill Book and Tax Invoice Bills marked in
evidence do establish the fact that the deceased was actively doing
business, however, there is no proof of actual income. Though, some
element of guess work needs to be adopted by the Courts in cases of
this nature, the income estimate @ Rs.15,000/- per month adopted by
the Tribunal appears to be probable and said finding cannot be said to
be perverse. Therefore, this Court adopts the income of the deceased
@ Rs 15,000/- per month, but the methodology of calculation adopted
by the Tribunal i.e., manner of enhancement of 40% towards income
does not appear to be correct. The re-worked calculation is given
below in tabular form. As regards loss of consortium, the Tribunal
awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- to the claimants, but as per the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General
Insurance Co., Ltd Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram 2, each of the
claimant is entitled for consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/-. As
regards the other heads of compensation, this Court does not find any
flaw.
(2018) 18 SCC 130
12. The re-worked compensation payable to the claimants is as
under:
MONTHLY INCOME Rs. 15000/-
ADDITION TO INCOME TO FUTURE
Rs.21000/-
PROSPECT(@40% DECEASED BEING LESS
(15000+6000)
THAN 40 YEARS and SELF -EMPLOYED
ANNUAL INCOME(21000*12) Rs.252000/-
Rs.189000
DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL & LIVING
(Rs.252000-
EXPENSES(1/4)
Rs.63000))
Rs. 28,35,000/-
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
(Rs.189000x15)
LOSS OF ESTATE Rs.15000/-
Rs. 1,60,000/-
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
(Rs 40,000/-x4)
FUNERAL EXPENSES Rs. 15000/-
TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION Rs. 30,25,000
13. The Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above and the rest of
the aspects of the Award of the Tribunal are confirmed. No order as to
costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________
G. NARENDAR, J
________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 08.02.2024
KLP
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Date: 08.02.2024
KLP
