Telangana High Court

Maloth Chittemma 3 Others vs The Managing Director on 23 August, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi, M.G.Priyadarsini

          THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI


      M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1207 of 2015 & 1274 of 2015


COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Justice G. Sri Devi)


      M.A.C.M.A.No.1207 of 2015 is preferred by the

appellants, who are the claimants before the Tribunal,

assailing the order and decree of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Judge),

Kothagudem made in M.V.O.P. No.517 of 2013 dated

23.01.2015 on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.



2.    M.A.C.M.A. No.1274 of 2015 is preferred by the

appellant-Andhra    Pradesh      State   Road    Transport

Corporation, who is the respondent before the Tribunal,

assailing the very same order and decree of the Tribunal on

the ground that the impugned Order and decree of the trial

Court are contrary to law, evidence on record and illegal

and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

excessive and exorbitant.

3. The claimants filed the M.V.O.P. under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging that on 07.09.2012 the

deceased went to Bhupalpally to meet his friend P.Rami

Reddy at about 14-00 hours and he took the motorcycle of

his friend for dropping to the bus stand on which the

deceased and son of his friend were proceeding towards

Bhupalpally bus stand and on the way at about 14-15

hours when they reached near Srinivasa Lorry Transport

Company, at that time the driver of RTC bus bearing No.

AP.28.Z.3231 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at

high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As

a result of which, the rider and pillion rider i.e., deceased

and son of his friend, fell down and that the deceased

received severe head injury and was shifted to Area

Hospital, Bhupalpally where he was given first aid and due

to serious condition, he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital,

Hyderabad, where he was succumbed to the injuries on

22.9.2012 at 19-30 hours. Therefore, they laid a claim for

Rs.40,00,000/- towards compensation under various

heads.

4. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the

Corporation and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral

and documentary, the learned Tribunal has allowed the

O.P. in part, directing the respondent-Corporation to pay

the compensation of Rs.33,57,848/- with interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realisation with proportionate costs.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the

learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Andhra Pradesh

State Road Transport Corporation.

6. The learned counsel for the claimants contends that

the order and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law,

weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for

the respondent-Corporation contended that the Tribunal

failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and

misconstrued the documents and that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant.

8. With regard to the manner of accident, the Tribunal

after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and after

considering the documentary evidence on record, rightly

came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.

9. With regard to the compensation, the deceased was a

permanent employee in the Singareni Collieries Company

Limited, Kothagudem and at the time of his death, he was

aged about 33 years. A perusal of the record, it transpires

that the gross salary of the deceased at the time of his

death was Rs.32,136.39 ps. However, basing on the salary

slip, the net salary of the deceased Rs.24,574/- per month

was taken into consideration by the Tribunal which shows

that the statutory deductions which were already been

deducted by the employer of the deceased. The statutory

deductions including the Income Tax by the Company from

the gross monthly salary of the deceased amounting to

nearly Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence in our considered

opinion, there is no need to further deduct the income tax

from the net salary of the deceased which was shown by

the Company itself.

10. According to Ex.A-9 Salary Certificate of the deceased

for the month of July 2012, the net salary of the deceased

was Rs.24,574/- which was taken into consideration by

the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has not taken into

consideration the future prospects of the deceased while

assessing the compensation in the light of the principles

laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1. Since

the deceased was a permanent employee and was getting

the net salary of Rs.24,574/-, the claimants are also

entitled to the future prospects and since the deceased was

aged about 33 years and below 43 years at the time of

accident, 50% of the income is to be added towards future

prospects. Then it comes to Rs.36,861/- which can be

rounded off to Rs.36,860/-. Since the deceased has left as

2017 ACJ 2700

many as four persons as his dependants, 1/4th of his

income is to be deducted towards his personal and living

expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be

Rs.27,645/- per month (36,860 - 9215 = 27,645/-). Since

the deceased was aged about 33 years at the time of

accident, the appropriate multiplier in the light of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation2 would be "16". Then the loss of

dependency would be Rs.27645 x 12 x 16

=Rs.53,07,840/-. Apart from the same, the claimants

being the dependants are entitled to a further sum of

Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus,

in all, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.53,84,840/-,

from Rs.33,57,848/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants

has submitted that the claimants/appellants have only

claimed the sum of Rs.40 lakhs, the Tribunal has already

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

awarded sum of Rs33,57,848/-. In Laxman @ Laxman

Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance

Company Limited and another3, the Apex Court while

referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4 held as

under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

12. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred

to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount

than what they have claimed.

13. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.1207 of 2015 filed by the

claimants is allowed by enhancing the compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.33,57,848/- to

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

Rs.53,84,840/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order passed by the

Tribunal till the date of realization, to be payable by the

respondent-Corporation. The amount of compensation