Addulla Kalavatamma Kalavathi, ... vs The Vc Md, Apsrtc, Hyderabad Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6283 Tel

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

       M.A.C.M.A.Nos.502 of 2015 and 833 of 2015

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      These two appeals are being disposed of by this

common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.502 of 2015 filed by

the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and

M.A.C.M.A.No.833 of 2015 filed by the respondent Nos.1

and 2-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

challenging the quantum of compensation, are directed

against the very same award and decree, dated 16.07.2014

made in M.V.O.P.No.1678 of 2012 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the

Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties

will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents 1

and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- for the

death of one A.Srikanth Reddy (hereinafter referred to as

"the deceased"), who died in the accident that occurred on

12.11.2011. According to the claimants, on 12.11.2011 at

about 18-00 hours while the deceased was proceeding with

his friend Karthik Reddy on Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle

bearing No. AP 28 CA 8514 from Nilevally site Ameenpur,

R.C.Puram towards Jagadgirigutta and on the way when he

reached near Miyapur vegetable market in front of

Hyderabad Timber Depot, at the same time, one APSRTC

Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 7158 being driven by its driver

came from his back side in a rash and negligent manner at

high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due

to which the deceased-A.Srikanth Reddy fell down on the

road along with motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries

to his head and left hand and died on the spot. According

to the petitioners, the deceased was a Supervisor in

Janapriya Nile Valley, Ameenpur Village, R.C.Puram,

Medak District and was drawing Rs.13,000/- per month.

Therefore, they are seeking compensation of

Rs.17,50,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2-

Corporation under different heads.

4. Before the Tribunal, both the respondents filed

counter denying the averments in the claim-petition

including the manner in which the accident took place,

age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further

contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and

exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

the following issues:

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in the death of the deceased A.Srikanth Reddy, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z7158) by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 to 3 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked

on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents,

no witnesses were examined and no document was

marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC

bus and awarded the total compensation of Rs.10,55,000/-

with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of payment or

realization to be paid by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly

and severally.

6. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the

material available on record.

7. Learned Counsel for the claimants has submitted

that though the claimants established that the deceased

was a Supervisor in Janapriya Nile Valley, Ameenpur

Village, R.C.Puram, Medak District and was drawing

Rs.13,000/- per month, the Tribunal has awarded very

meager amount.

8. The main contention raised by the learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents-Corporation is that there is

contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist and

the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 7158 and the

Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at

Rs.10,000/-. It is further contended that the compensation

claimed is excessive and prays to set aside the Order

passed by the Tribunal.

9. With regard to the manner of accident, PW.1

reiterated the petition averments. PW-2 who was said to be

an eyewitness has clearly stated that on 12.11.2011 at

about 6.00 p.m. he was going towards Jagadgirigutta from

Ameenpur, and in front of his motorcycle, one A.Srikanth

Reddy, who is his colleague was proceeding, at the same

time, one APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 7158 dashed

his colleague from back side. Due to which, he sustained

grievous injuries and died on the spot. Even as per the

charge sheet also, it is very clear that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

RTC Bus. Further there is no rebuttal evidence produced

by the respondents-Corporation to prove the negligence on

both the RTC Bus and the motorcycle. Therefore, the

Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2

coupled with the documentary evidence available on

record, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus.

10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the

evidence of PW-3 who is working as Head-HR in Janapriya

Nyle Valley, Hyderabad shows that he knows the deceased

A.Srikanth Reddy who worked as Senior Executive in

Inventory Department from 23.6.2011 to 12.11.2011 in

their organization and he was drawing Rs.1,56,000/- per

annum i.e., Rs.13,000/- per month. Ex.A8 salary

certificate was issued by him. Learned counsel for the

respondents-Corporation argued that the petitioners

though filed salary certificate, PW-3 has not produced any

documentary proof to show that the deceased was working

in their Company nor drawing amount of Rs.13,000/- per

month. This Court has perused the documents filed along

with the petition i.e., Ex.X-1 to X-3 which discloses that

the deceased is a Graduate and the petitioners have also

produced the original consolidated marks memo issued by

Osmania University and original provisional certificate

issued by the Registrar, Osmania University. Therefore,

this Court is of the considered opinion that person with a

qualification as a Graduate will not lead his life without

any avocation or job. Furthermore, the Tribunal has also

taken into consideration the educational qualification and

the occupation of the deceased, assessed the income of the

deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month, however, even after

accepting his occupation as Senior Executive, Janapriya

Nyle Valley, Ameenpur Village, however, did not taken into

consideration the salary certificate issued by the company.

Hence, in view of the above, this Court is inclined to accept

the salary certificate filed under Ex.A8 and taken the

income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- per month. Further

the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards

future prospects to the established income, as per the

decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1.

Therefore, future monthly income of the deceased comes to

2017 ACJ 2700

Rs.18,200/- (Rs.13,000/- + Rs.5,200/- being 40% thereof).

From this, 50% is to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation2 as the deceased was a bachelor.

After deducting 50% amount towards his personal and

living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the

family would be Rs.9,100/- per month. Since the

deceased was 26 years by the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '17' as per the decision reported in

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra).

Adopting multiplier '17', the total loss of dependency would

be Rs.9,100/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.18,56,400/-. In addition

thereto, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.33,000/-

under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's

(supra). Further the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are also

entitled to parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per

the Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.

Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all the claimants

are entitled to Rs.19,69,400/-.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.502 of 2015 filed by the

claimants is allowed by enhancing the compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.10,55,000/- to

Rs.19,69,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest

at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and

severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in

the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time to deposit

the compensation is one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. The claimants shall pay the deficit court

fee and on such payment of court fee only, the claimants

are entitled to withdraw the compensation without

furnishing any security. M.A.C.M.A.No.833 of 2015 stands

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 01.12.2022 pgp