The Telangana State Road ... vs K. Srilath
2022 Latest Caselaw 6520 Tel

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

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 1608 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Road Transport

Corporation, questioning the judgment and decree, dated

13.12.2016 made in M.V.O.P.No.143 of 2015 on the file of the

Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, the

Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-

against the respondent-RTC on account of death of the

deceased, K. Venu, in the accident that occurred on 01.02.2015

involving the bus bearing No. AP 10Z 7776, owned by the

respondent. According to the claimants, on the fateful day,

while the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle from

Secunderabad to Yapral, when he reached opposite to

Prashanth theatre, the offending bus came in rash and

negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, the

MGP, J Macma_1608_2018

deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the

injuries while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad. According to the claimants, the deceased was

aged about 24 years, working as Mason and earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, they laid the claim for

Rs.12.00 lakhs against the respondents.

4. The respondent contested the claim petition by filing its

counter. After considering the claim, counter and the evidence

brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. awarding

compensation of Rs.24,43,000/- together with interest at 7.5%

per annum and costs to be paid by the respondent. Challenging

the same, the present appeal is preferred by the respondent-

RTC.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on

record.

6. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant-RTC is that in the absence of any proof as to the

income of the deceased, the learned tribunal ought not to have

taken the income at Rs.10,500/- per month. It is further

contended that the tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future

MGP, J Macma_1608_2018

prospects considering the fact that the deceased was self-

employed and it should not be more than 40%.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the claimants has sought to sustain the impugned

order contending that considering the fact that the deceased

was skilled worker, the tribunal has rightly taken the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/- and rightly added 50%

towards future prospects. It is further contended that in fact,

the tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/3rd towards personal

and living expenses of the deceased from the monthly income,

but considering the fact that there are four dependents, the

deduction should be 1/4th only. Therefore, the learned

counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Insofar as the manner in which the accident took place is

concerned, a perusal of the impugned judgment would show

that the tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the

accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

vehicle by the driver of the offending bus, and having considered

the evidence of P.W.2, eyewitness, coupled with the

documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the

MGP, J Macma_1608_2018

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver

of the offending bus and has answered the issue in favour of the

claimants and against the respondents. Although the learned

Standing Counsel for the appellant-RTC contends that there

was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the

motorcycle, it did not choose to let in any evidence in this

regard before the tribunal by summoning the rider of the

motorcycle. Even no contra evidence was elicited in the cross-

examination of P.W.2, eyewitness to the accident, to discredit

his testimony. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the

finding of the Tribunal in this regard.

9. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

admittedly, the deceased was Mason by profession. He being a

skilled worker, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the

assessment made by the tribunal in fixing the monthly income

of the deceased at Rs.10,500/-. However, the tribunal has

added 50% towards future prospects to the monthly established

income of the deceased instead of 40%. But, it is to be observed

that since there are four dependents, instead of deducting 1/4th

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the

tribunal has deducted 1/3rd. Hence the amount after

MGP, J Macma_1608_2018

calculating with the above adjustment would be more or less

same. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to

interfere with the impugned order passed by the tribunal.

10. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the

order of the tribunal, dated 13.12.2016 made in M.V.O.P. No.

143 of 2015. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

dismissed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 06.12.2022 Tsr

MGP, J Macma_1608_2018

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

M.A.C.M.A. No. 1608 of 2018

DATE:06-12-2022