Apsrtc, Rep By Its M.D., Hyderabad vs Regalla Madhavi, Khammam Dist 4 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3448 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.674 of 2016

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is arising out of the order dated 28.08.2014, in

MVOP.No.390 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs. & STs.

(POA) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam. For the

sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the OP.

2. The appeal is filed by the RTC, who is the sole respondent in

the O.P. The O.P. is filed before the Tribunal under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.12 Lakhs

with costs and interest @ 18% per annum for the accident occurred

on 25.10.2012 resulting in the death of the deceased Regalla

Sathish. The petitioners in the O.P. are the wife, children and

parents of the deceased. As on the date of filing of the O.P.,

petitioner Nos.2 and 4 were minors being represented by their

natural guardian i.e. the mother. It is the case of the claimants that

the deceased was working as a Compounder, earning Rs.8,000/-

per month and aged about 29 years at the time of the accident.

GAC, J MACMA.No.674 of 2016

Apart from that, he was having 2 acres of agricultural land and was

earning Rs.1 Lakh per annum from the said land and due to the

death of the deceased, the petitioners are deprived of their financial

assistance, love and affection, care and guidance of the deceased

and therefore, they are entitled for the compensation.

3. On the date of accident, the deceased along with his friend,

was proceeding towards Khammam on his motorcycle bearing

No.AP-20-AK-1981 and when they reached near the rice mill

turning at Pallegudem, an RTC bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-3151

came in opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of

the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained multiple

injuries and was shifted to Kinnera hospital and while undergoing

treatment, he succumbed to injuries. Therefore, a case was

registered against the driver of the RTC bus for the offences under

Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC, vide FIR.No.275 of 2012 on the

file of Khammam Rural Police Station.

4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the RTC before the

Tribunal, disputing the age and income of the deceased and also

GAC, J MACMA.No.674 of 2016

about the deceased not having driving licence. It was further

contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of

the RTC bus.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the petitioners

are entitled for a compensation of Rs.12,24,072/- but restricted

their claim to Rs.12 Lakhs and also apportioned the amount

between the petitioners who are the wife, children and parents of

the deceased. Aggrieved by the said order, the RTC has preferred

this appeal.

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

record.

7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-RTC

that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver

of the bus, but the accident had occurred due to the rash and

negligent riding of motorcycle by the deceased. It is further urged

by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in

applying multiplier '18' instead of '17' and contended that the

GAC, J MACMA.No.674 of 2016

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is high and excessive and

prayed to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

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

dispute as to the manner in which the accident had occurred on

25.10.2012. PW-1, who is the wife of the deceased, deposed about

the age and income of the deceased. PW-2 is the eyewitness to the

accident. Exs.A-1 and A-2 are the FIR and charge sheet filed in

Cr.No.275 of 2012 on the file of Khammam Rural Police Station.

Ex.A-5 is the MVI report, which clearly disclose that there are no

mechanical defects in the RTC bus at the time of accident. The

charge sheet disclose that the driver of the RTC bus drove the bus

in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the

deceased and as a result, the death of the deceased occurred. The

oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence in

Exs.A-1, A-2 and A-5 corroborates with each other as to the

manner in which the accident had occurred and as to the age and

income of the deceased. Ex.A-6 is the salary certificate of the

deceased issued by one Dr.Venkateswar Rao, which reveals that

the deceased worked as a Compounder and was being paid an

GAC, J MACMA.No.674 of 2016

amount of Rs.8,500/- per month. As per Ex.A-3/postmortem report

and Ex.A-4/inquest report, the age of the deceased was 30 years

and there is no dispute between the parties as to the age of the

deceased.

9. The trial Court has taken the multiplier as '18' as per

Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, instead of following the

multiplier as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corporation &

another1 and have come to a conclusion that the deceased is

entitled to compensation of Rs.12,24,072/-.

10. Considering the multiplier mentioned in Sarla Verma's case

(1 supra) and after applying the multiplier '17' instead of '18' also,

the compensation will come to Rs.13,00,500/- and the Tribunal has

erred by wrongly calculating the compensation. The monthly

income of the deceased is Rs.8,500/- and the annual income comes

to Rs.1,02,000/- (Rs.8,500/- X 12). As the number of claimants are

more than 4, the deduction would be 1/4th i.e. Rs.25,500/-

(Rs.1,02,000 X ¼=Rs.25,500/-) towards the personal expenses of

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GAC, J MACMA.No.674 of 2016

the deceased. Thus, the annual income of deceased would come to

Rs.76,500/- [Rs.1,02,000/- (-) Rs.25,500/-). If the multiplier '17' is

applied to the total income of Rs.76,500/-, it would come to

Rs.13,00,500/- (Rs.76,500/- X 17). However, the trial Court has

wrongly calculated it as Rs.12,24,072/- instead of Rs.13,00,500/-.

Moreover, if the other heads of compensation are taken into

consideration i.e. funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of

estate and love and affection, the compensation might have been

more than Rs.13 Lakhs. Admittedly, there are no cross-objections

or appeal filed by the claimants in this case. The Tribunal has

restricted the amount to Rs.12 Lakhs as the claimants themselves

have paid the Court fee for the claim of Rs.12 Lakhs.

11. Therefore, there is no irregularity or error in the orders

passed by the Tribunal either in coming to the conclusion about the

rash and negligent act of the driver of the RTC bus or in granting

the compensation.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed

as devoid of merits. As far as apportionment is concerned, the

GAC, J MACMA.No.674 of 2016

orders of the Tribunal holds good. The appellant-RTC shall

deposit the compensation amount within 3 months from the date of

this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to

withdraw the same. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 06.07.2022

ajr