Telangana State Road Transport ... vs S Anitha
2022 Latest Caselaw 3450 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                   MACMA No.621 of 2018

JUDGMENT :

The State Road Transport Corporation of Telangana is

the appellant and respondents No.1 to 6 are claimants and this

appeal is filed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.2282 of 2015

by which an amount of Rs.18,22,760/- was awarded to the

respondents/claimants against the appellant towards

compensation for the death of one S.Vijay Kumar in a road

accident.

2. Aggrieved by the award dated 31-08-2017, this

appeal has been preferred on various grounds. The appellant

has claimed that the Court below committed an error in

awarding Rs.18,22,760/- with costs and interest against the

claim of Rs.10,00,000/- filed by the respondents/claimants

under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1989. The appellants have

claimed that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the

responsibility of accident to the bus driver and the Tribunal

failed to frame an issue with regard to contributory negligence

on the part of the deceased. It is the case of appellant that SSRN,J

there was negligence on the part of the deceased Cyclist who

was riding the cycle in a negligent manner without noticing the

other vehicles on the road. To prove the accident, the

respondents/claimants have examined one G.Laxminarayana

as PW.2, but his name was not shown as eye-witness to the

accident in the charge sheet filed by the concerned police.

3. The appellant further claimed that there was no

proper record to believe the contents of Ex.A6 supposed to be

a salary certificate, but the Court below considered the said

certificate and erred in taking income of the deceased as

Rs.8,000/- per month. It is also alleged in the grounds of

appeal that though there is no proof about the age of the

deceased, the Court below applied multiplier '14' which is

incorrect. Having placed reliance on the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in "National Insurance Company

Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors.1", the appellant has

claimed that as per the above said Judgment, future prospects

of the deceased, whose age was between 40 to 50 shall be

considered as 25%, but the Court below added 30%, therefore,

2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) SSRN,J

it shall be reduced. In addition to this, they have pleaded that

the Tribunal committed error in awarding Rs.1,00,000/-

towards consortium, Rs.3,75,000/- towards loss of love and

affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral charges and sought

for setting aside the award.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that even if the contention of the

respondents/claimants with regard to age of the deceased is

believed between 40-50, future prospects must be 25%, but the

Court below added 30%. It has also submitted that consortium

must be Rs.40,000/-, but the court below awarded

Rs.1,00,000/- and the other amounts awarded as loss of love

and affection, funeral charges to be reconsidered, thereby,

sought for setting aside the award. There is no representation

for the respondents/claimants.

5. The above referred petition M.V.O.P.No.2282 of

2015 has been filed by the respondents herein for

compensation on the ground that the deceased S.Vijay Kumar

was the husband of respondent No.1, father of respondents

No.2 to 4, the 6th respondent was his mother. It is the specific SSRN,J

case of respondents that on 18.07.2015 at about 4.00 a.m.,

while the deceased was going towards his house on his by-

cycle, and when he reached the area near Kaloji Sainik School,

Jiyaguda, Hyderabad, the driver of APSRTC bus bearing

No.AP 11 Z 1031, while driving his bus in a rash and

negligent manner, in a high speed, dashed the cycle of the

deceased, due to which he fell down, suffered grievous injuries

and died on the spot. The respondents have claimed that the

deceased was 42 years old, he was a private employee i.e.,

security guard and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore,

they sought for Rs.10,00,000/- on various heads. The

appellant herein disputed the claim, filed counter disputing the

material averments. However, the Court below accepted the

contention of respondents and awarded Rs.18,22,760/- as

compensation.

6. In the light of the appeal grounds filed by the

appellant and argument advanced by the learned counsel for

the appellant, the points for consideration in this appeal are :

1. Whether the Court below awarded excess amount towards compensation, thereby, the award is liable to be set aside ?

SSRN,J

2. Whether the compensation amount can be reduced as contended by the appellant ?

7. There is no dispute about the accident in which the

deceased S.Vijay Kumar died. It may be a fact that the name

of PW.2 is not figured as eye-witness in the charge sheet.

PW.2 has been examined at the instance of

respondents/claimants. He has categorically deposed about the

accident. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for

the appellant herein and nothing could be elicited to believe

that he was deposing falsehood. Even though, it is argued by

the learned counsel for the appellant that there was

contributory negligence by the deceased, there is no oral or

documentary evidence in support of the said contention and

appellant herein did not examine any witness to establish that

the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased.

8. The respondents have pleaded that deceased was

working as private security guard and earning Rs.15,000/- per

month. In support of the said claim, they have examined one

T.Rajender as PW.3 and marked Ex.A6. PW.3 admitted that he

did not maintain any Provident Fund and ESI records, he SSRN,J

deposed about employment of deceased as security guard. He

did not produce any proof to believe that, really there is such a

security service and he was paying Rs.15,000/- per month to

the deceased. Had there been such a security service and

PW.3 was paying Rs.15,000/- per month, it may not be

difficult for the respondents to secure some evidence.

Therefore, the Court below did not accept the evidence of

PW.3.

9. However, in view of the age of the deceased and

number of family members who were dependent upon the

earnings of the deceased, the Court below considered his

income as Rs.8,000/- per month. The Court below added 30%

of the said income as future prospects. But as rightly

contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, it must be

25% in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) case. Therefore, the same shall

be reduced by 5%.

10. The Court below did not accept the contention of

the respondent No.5, who was younger brother of the deceased

was dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. He was a SSRN,J

private employee, therefore, he cannot be considered as

dependent of the deceased. The Court below awarded a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium to the wife of the deceased,

a part from awarding Rs.1,00,000/- each to his children. In the

above referred Judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) case, the

Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that more than a

sum of Rs.40,000/- cannot be awarded under this head,

thereby, petitioners No.1 to 4 and 6 are entitled to an amount

of Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- each

towards loss of estate and they are also entitled to an amount

of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure.

11. Therefore, respondents/claimants i.e, wife,

children and mother of deceased are entitled for Rs.55,000/-

each apart from Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Even if 10%

is added for every three years, they are entitled to additional

amount of Rs.7,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate

and consortium. The income of deceased is assessed as

Rs.8,000/- per month, if 25% is added as future prospects it is

Rs.2,000/- thereby, Rs.10,000/- per month. Since the family

consisting five members, 1/4th shall be deducted. So the SSRN,J

monthly contribution is Rs.7,500/- per month and Rs.90,000/-

relevant multiplier is '14'- Rs.90,000/- x 14 = Rs.12,60,000/-.

Respondents/claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- each on

other heads, Rs.77,000/- x 5 = Rs.3,85,000/-. Therefore, the

respondents/claimants are entitled to Rs.16,45,000/-

(12,60,000/- = 3,85,000/-).

12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

modifying the compensation from 18,22,760/- to 16,45,000/-.

The apportionment shall be adjusted in proportion accordingly.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

6th July, 2022.

PLV