Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Gadapha Vani G.Vanamma on 1 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
M.A.C.M.A. No.313 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
-
This M.A.C.M.A. is directed against the award, dated
27.03.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.512 of 2013, on the file of
V-Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Nellore, ("Tribunal" for short) where under, the
Tribunal in a Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim filed by the
respondent herein awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as
compensation towards the death of the mother of the claimant
in a motor vehicle accident which was occurred on 15.02.2013.
2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A will hereinafter be referred
to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the claimant in the M.V.O.P.No.512 of 2013
according to the petition averments, in brief, is that:
(i) The claimant is the daughter of the deceased. On
15.02.2013 at Ramudupalem Village at 11.50 a.m., when the
mother of the claimant tried to cross the road from north to
south so as to catch RTC bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-3127(herein
after will be referred to as "offending vehicle") the bus being
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the
deceased due to which the left front bumper of the bus hit the
deceased and left front wheel of the bus ran over her, causing
her death on the spot.
(ii) The Station House Officer, Indukurpet, registered the
case in Crime No.20/2013 against the driver of the offending
RTC Bus under Section 304-A IPC. As the accident was occurred
due to negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the
respondent has to held the liability to pay compensation.
4. The respondent got filed a counter, denying the case of
the petitioner and resisting the claim of the petitioner. The
contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has to prove
the age of the deceased and the manner of the accident and
further the income of the deceased and her contributions
towards the family. The claimant has to prove that she is the
legal heir of the deceased. The claimant being married woman is
not entitled to seek any compensation. There was no negligence
on the part of the bus driver bearing No. AP-11-Z-3127. The
accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased
while crossing the road. The claim is excessive. Hence, the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled
the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the accident that took place on 15.02.2013 at
about 11.50 a.m. in Ramudupalem village was due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus
bearing No. AP 11 Z 3127?
(2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If
so to what amount?
(3) To what relief?
6. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of
the claimant P.W.1 to P.W.2 were examined and Exhibits A.1 to
A.4 were marked. The respondent examined the Conductor of
the bus as R.W.1.
7. The Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the
oral as well as documentary evidence, awarded a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation with an interest 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and that
the claimant is entitled to withdraw half of the awarded amount
with accrued interest and that the remaining amount shall be
kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for 3 years and
that the time for depositing is one month. Felt aggrieved of the
same, the unsuccessful respondent i.e., APSRTC filed the
present M.A.C.M.A.
8. Now, in deciding the M.A.C.M.A., the points that arise for
determination are as follows:
(1) Whether the claimant before the Tribunal proved that
the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C., bus bearing No.
AP 11 Z 3127?
(2) Whether the claimant proved her entitlement to claim
the compensation on account of the death of deceased
and whether the award dated 27.03.2015, awarding a
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is sustainable under law
and facts?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
9. P.W.1 before the Tribunal was no other than the claimant
and in her chief examination affidavit, she put forth the facts in
tune with petition averments. Through her examination Exhibits
A1 to A4 were marked. Ex.A1 was the attested Xerox copy FIR
in Crime No.20/2013, Ex.A2 was the attested Xerox copy of
inquest report, Ex.A3 was the attested Xerox copy of
postmortem certificate of the deceased and Ex.A4 was the copy
of charge sheet.
10. Further, the petitioner examined the direct witness to the
occurrence i.e., P.W.2, who deposed that at the time of the
accident, he was standing near tea bunk situated on the
northern side of the road at Ramudupalem village and he
witnessed the same. The RTC bus driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner came at high speed and while adjusting
with a curve, the left front bumper of the RTC bus hit the
deceased and accordingly, the deceased came under the left
front wheel of the bus and died instantaneously.
11. The respondent examined the Conductor of the RTC bus
whose evidence was that there was a „U‟ shape turning at
Ramudupalem and one lady pedestrian suddenly crossed the
road from north to south without observing the moving of the
bus. Though the bus was moving slowly but hit the lady
pedestrian, as she suddenly crossed the road without taking
proper care and that there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of the offending vehicle.
12. The learned Standing Counsel, Mr.Solomon Raju,
appearing for the appellant, would contend that evidence on
record would disclose that the accident was occurred due to the
negligent walking of the deceased so as to catch the bus and the
R.W.1 who was no other than the conductor of the bus,
supported the case of the appellant. The evidence on record did
not prove the rash and negligent act against the driver of the
RTC bus. He would further submit that the marriage of the
petitioner was performed long back prior to the death of the
deceased and she was a married daughter and she was not at all
dependent upon the deceased and there was no justification on
the part of the Tribunal to award any compensation. He would
further submit that even otherwise a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as a
compensation awarded to the petitioner was highly excessive.
With the above submissions, he would contend that the appeal
is liable to be allowed.
13. Though, an opportunity is given to the respondent to get
the arguments advanced, no arguments are advanced.
14. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the
evidence on record would prove that the deceased died due to
rash and negligent act of the driver of the APSRTC bus. As seen
from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, they denied the case of
the respondent. As seen from the evidence of R.W.1, though he
supported the case of the respondent but being a conductor
virtually he would have no occasion to observe as to the manner
in which the driver of the RTC bus was driving the vehicle. On
the other hand, P.W.2 who claimed that he was a direct witness
to the occurrence corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. There is
no dispute that with regard to the incident in question the police
registered F.I.R under Section 304-A IPC in Crime No.20/2013
of Indukurpet Police Station and after conducting investigation
filed a charge sheet (Ex.A4 is the copy of the charge sheet)
alleging rash and negligent act against the driver of the
offending vehicle. So, the outcome of the investigation was that
the driver of APSRTC bus i.e., offending vehicle, drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased
which caused her instantaneous death.
15. It is to be noted the respondent has every control over the
driver of the RTC bus. The respondent did not examine the
driver of APSRTC bus. On the other hand, R.W.1 being a
conductor whose duty was only to issue tickets to the
passengers would have no occasion to observe the manner of
driving of the driver. In my considered view, there was no
proper rebuttal evidence to the evidence let in by the petitioner.
Evidence on record goes to prove that the accident occurred was
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending
vehicle due to which the mother of the petitioner died
instantaneously.
16. As seen from the copy of inquest under Ex.A2 and the
copy of postmortem under Ex.A3, the cause of the death of the
deceased on account of the injuries received in the accident.
Therefore, the petitioner was able to prove before the Tribunal
that the death of the mother of the petitioner was occurred due
to the rash and negligent act of the driver of APSRTC bus.
17. Coming to the contention of the appellant that the
petitioner being married daughter was not entitled to
compensation, it deserves no merits, in my considered view. It
is borne out from the evidence that father of P.W.1 died about
three years ago and her marriage took place about 18 years
ago. Because of the death of father of the petitioner, her mother
was staying with them. So, undoubtedly, the petitioner being
the daughter and dependent of the deceased is entitled to
compensation. There is no merit in the contention of the
appellant in this regard.
18. Coming to the quantum of compensation, admittedly,
there was no evidence adduced to show actual earnings of the
deceased. So, when there was no evidence on record, Tribunal
had to arrive at the income of the deceased on the basis of
notional theory. The accident took place in the year 2013. Even
a person who was doing coolie works like the deceased in the
year 2013, would have easily earned Rs.100/- per day. So, the
Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.100/- per
day, as such Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per year.
Following the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation1, the Tribunal deducted the 1/3rd of the income
towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Further, there
is no dispute that the proper multiplier for the age group of 46
to 50 is "13". So, the Tribunal considered the net contributions
of the deceased towards the family as that of Rs.24,000/- per
year and multiplied it and it arrived at Rs.3,12,000/-. Though,
the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
consortium and further sum Rs.10,000/- towards funeral
2009 ACJ 1298 SC
expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate i.e.,
Rs.30,000/- under conventional heads but restricted the
compensation to that of Rs.3,00,000/- only. Though the
petitioner being the daughter was not entitled to consortium but
in fact the compensation was restricted to only Rs.3,00,000/-,
even as against the calculations of Rs.3,12,000/-. Considering
the same, the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal
in favour of the claimant was absolutely on reasonable basis, as
such, this Court does not find any reason whatsoever to
interfere with the same.
19. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is dismissed, but under the
circumstances without costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt.01.02.2024.
MH
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 01.02.2024
MH
