The Managing Director, vs Smt. Kotla Veena Anjanna 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6566 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3655 of 2011

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.425 of

2010, dated 03.08.2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as

arrayed in the O.P.

3. The Managing Director, RTC is the appellant. The O.P. was

filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death

of the deceased/K.Pavan Kumar Reddy, in the accident which

occurred on 20.06.2010. The said accident occurred, while the

deceased was travelling along with one Chandrasekhar Reddy on

the motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-BH-1679 from Hyderabad to

Sadasivpet and when they reached Kovalampet village, the RTC

bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-1942, driven by its driver in a rash and

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

GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011

deceased sustained head injuries and fractures and was shifted to

Apollo hospital, Hyderabad, and from there, to NIMS hospital,

Hyderabad and there he succumbed to injuries on 26.06.2010 while

undergoing treatment.

4. Basing on the complaint of the driver of the RTC bus, a case

was registered against the deceased, in Crime No.124 of 2010 on

the file of Sangareddy (Rural) Police Station for the offence

punishable under Section 337 of IPC. Claimant No.1 is the wife,

claimant No.2 is the minor son and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are the

parents of the deceased. It is the specific averment in the claim

petition that the deceased was working as a showroom Manager in

Khazana Jewelry and was earning a gross salary of Rs.19,894/- per

month as per Ex.A-7/salary certificate.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record.

GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011

7. Being aggrieved as to the liability and compensation

awarded against the RTC, the RTC has preferred this appeal

contending that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of

the RTC bus and prayed to set aside the orders of the Tribunal.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants/RTC

that the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who drove the

motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the

RTC bus and further urged that the driver of the Bus preferred the

complaint against the deceased, for which, an FIR was registered.

It is further contended that the evidence of RW-1 was not

considered in proper perspective and that PW-2 is an interested

witness, and hence, his evidence cannot be believed.

9. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for

respondents/claimants that the claimants are entitled for more

compensation than granted by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal

has erred in restricting the compensation to Rs.20,00,000/- though

GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011

it found that the claimants are entitled for compensation of

Rs.23,41,960/- and prayed to enhance the compensation.

10. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no

dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on

20.06.2010. The evidence on record clearly discloses that the RTC

bus driver, took a diversion on account of an accident which

occurred on the road and took diversion on to the opposite road and

dashed against the scooter of the deceased. Though it is the

specific contention of the appellant that the driver of the RTC bus

was not negligent and did not drove the bus at a high speed and

that the accident occurred in view of the diversion on the road. But

said contention cannot be taken into consideration in view of

Ex.A-2/charge sheet. Admittedly, the driver of the RTC bus

preferred a complaint against the deceased immediately after the

accident, but the concerned Police, after investigating the case, laid

Ex.A-2/charge sheet against the driver of the bus. The contents of

Ex.A2 disclose that the driver of the bus drove the bus rash and

negligently and dashed against the scooter which resulted in the

death of the deceased. Therefore, it can be construed that the

GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011

Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came

to a conclusion that the RTC is liable to pay compensation to the

deceased. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/RTC

deserves to be dismissed.

11. In the judgment of the Apex Court in Surekha w/o.

Rajendra Nakhate & others. V. Santosh S/o.Namdeo Jadhav &

others1, their Lordships have held as under:

"By now, it is well settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants".

12. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

even in the appeals filed by the Insurance Company or RTC, the

Court can enhance compensation of the claimants without there

being any cross-objections/cross-appeals.

13. On perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is evident that

future prospects of the deceased are not taken into consideration

while calculating the compensation. There is no dispute as to the

age and income of the deceased. As per the judgment in

2020 ACJ 2156

GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011

Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2,

the claimants are also entitled for future prospects of 40% on the

income of the deceased. As per Ex.A-7/salary certificate, the

salary of the deceased was Rs.19,894/-. If 40% future prospects

are added, it would come to Rs.27,851.60 ps. (Rs.19,894+Rs.

7,957.60 ps.). The claimants in this case are four in number and

1/4th of his income has to be deducted towards the personal

expenses of the deceased, thus, the deceased would be contributing

3/4th of his income to the family. The deceased was aged 30 years

as on the date of the accident, as per Exs.A-3 and A-4 i.e. inquest

and postmortem reports respectively. As per the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (2 supra), the

multiplier applicable is '17' for the age group of 26 to 30 years.

The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.3,34,219.20 ps.

(Rs.27,851.60 X 12). Therefore, the loss of earnings of the

deceased would be Rs.42,61,294.80 ps. (Rs.3,34,219.20 X 17 X

3/4).

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011

14. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others3, wife, son and

parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards

consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and another

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under

the following heads;

1. Loss of dependency Rs.42,61,294.80 ps.

2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-

3. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to the wife, Rs.1,60,000/-

son and parents of the deceased)

4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-

         TOTAL                                  Rs.44,51,294.80
                                                rounded-off to
                                                Rs.44,51,295/-

16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.44,51,295/- with costs and

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

the date of realization, payable by the appellant/RTC within two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Respondent No.2 i.e. the minor son of the deceased, is entitled to

2017 ACJ 2700

GAC, J MACMA.No.3655 of 2011

Rs.10,00,000/- and the said amount shall be deposited in any

Nationalised Bank as fixed deposit till he attains majority. The

respondents/claimant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are equally entitled for the rest

of the amount i.e. Rs.34,51,295/- along with interest and they are

permitted to withdraw their respective shares, on payment of

deficit Court fee, as the accident occurred in the year 2010.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 07.12.2022

ajr