Smt Ginya Bai Another vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3533 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

               M.A.C.M.A.Nos.986 and 1467 of 2016

COMMON JUDGMENT :

        These two appeals are arising out of the same order dated

08.09.2015, in O.P.No.1602 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City

Civil Court, Hyderabad. MACMA.No.1467 of 2016 is filed by the

APSRTC, to set aside the orders in the said O.P., whereas,

MACMA.No.986 of 2016 is filed by the claimants for

enhancement       of   compensation     from    Rs.8,85,000/-    to

Rs.10,00,000/-.


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

arrayed in the O.P.


3.      The O.P. is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act

claiming compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs for the death of one

Sherikar Balaji in the accident occurred on 20.03.2013 at 4.30 p.m.

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

bearing No.AP-10-Z-9780.
                                 2
                                                               GAC, J
                                          MACMA.Nos.986 & 1467 of 2016



4.    Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

5.    The learned Standing Counsel for RTC contended that the

Tribunal has not properly come to a conclusion as to the earnings

of the deceased and ought not to have granted Rs.50,000/- towards

medical expenses inspite of no oral or documentary evidence on

record. It is also contended by the learned Standing Counsel for

the RTC that the Tribunal ought not to have granted Rs.25,000/-

towards funeral expenses.


6.    On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants

contended that 40% of future prospects and consortium of

Rs.40,000/- per head has to be granted by the Tribunal and prayed

to grant compensation under the said heads.


7.    There is no dispute with regard to the income or age of the

deceased in this case. On perusal of the record, it is evident that

the accident occurred on 20.03.2013 at 4.30 p.m. when the

deceased along with his friend were returning from Abids to

Malakpet on the two wheeler bearing No.AP-28-AG-9041 and

when they reached Golnaka, the RTC bus bearing No.
                                        3
                                                                   GAC, J
                                              MACMA.Nos.986 & 1467 of 2016



AP-10-Z-9780 dashed against the two wheeler in a rash and

negligent manner from their back, resulting in the death of the

deceased while undergoing treatment in the hospital.


8.       The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-7 corroborates

with each other as to the manner of accident, age and income of the

deceased and there is no dispute with regard to the said aspect to

interfere with the orders of the Tribunal.


9.       Both the counsel contended that the Larger Bench judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi & others1 has to be followed while granting

compensation on different heads.


10.      On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the

Tribunal has awarded the following amounts under different heads;

         1.

Loss of dependency - Rs.8,10,000/-

         2. Funeral expenses       -       Rs.25,000/-
         3. Medical expenses       -       Rs.50,000/-

Thus, granted an amount of Rs.8,85,000/- towards compensation

and apportioned equally to both the claimants.

2017 ACJ 2700

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.986 & 1467 of 2016

11. Admittedly, the deceased is aged about 21 years as on the

date of the accident and there is no dispute raised by the appellant

as to the income of the deceased i.e. Rs.7,500/- per month as a

Mechanic. The evidence of PW-3 who is the owner of the

mechanic shed, clearly disclose that he paid an amount of

Rs.7,500/- per month to the deceased and Ex.A-8 is the salary

certificate issued by him. As per the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation & another2, the multiplier applicable is '18' for the

age group of 15 to 25 years. The annual income of the deceased is

Rs.90,000/-. If 40% future prospects is added, it would come to

Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.90,000 + Rs.36,000). Admittedly, the deceased

is an unmarried person and as per judgment in Sarla Verma's case

(2 supra), 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses. If

50% is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, his

contribution to the family would come to Rs.63,000/- (Rs.1,26,000

- Rs.63,000). If the multiplier '18' is applied, it would come to

Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.63,000 X 18).

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GAC, J MACMA.Nos.986 & 1467 of 2016

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

the following heads;

1. Loss of dependency - Rs.11,34,000/-

      2. Funeral expenses       -       Rs.15,000/-
      3. Consortium             -       Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/-
                                        each
      4. Loss of Estate         -       Rs.15,000/-

13. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of, granting a total

compensation of Rs.12,44,000/- with costs and interest at the rate

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

realisation. Both the claimants are equally entitled for the said

amount. They are permitted to withdraw the amount as the

accident took place in the year 2013.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 07.07.2022

ajr