Tsrtc vs Maduri Satyalaxmi And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3946 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.87 of 2018

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is arising out of the order dated 07.03.2017, in

O.P.No.150 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Siddipet.

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

arrayed in the OP.

3. The appeal is filed by the RTC, disputing the quantum of

compensation granted by the Tribunal. The O.P. is filed by the

claimant before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the

injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on

20.07.2014 at 10.00 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving by

the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2680, for which,

the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,22,000/-.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

GAC, J MACMA.No.87 of 2018

5. As the appeal is filed by the RTC disputing only as to the

quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appreciation

would be only with respect to the said aspect.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that

the Tribunal has erred in granting an amount of Rs.5,45,000/-

towards damages of the house, basing on Ex.A-20, though the

author of the document was not examined. It is further contended

that except Ex.A-20, there is no other evidence on record to prove

the damages of the house and therefore, prayed to reduce the

amount of Rs.5,45,000/-. It is further contended that the Tribunal

have erred in granting higher compensation under the head

"consortium" to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and also an amount of

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and prayed to reduce the

compensation under the said heads.

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

contended that Ex.A-20 is the building damage estimation issued

by Sunshine builders, who is one of the panel valuers of Municipal

Licenced Engineers and the Tribunal have rightly taken the said

GAC, J MACMA.No.87 of 2018

document into consideration while granting compensation towards

the damage of house. The alternative argument made by the

learned counsel for the claimant is that the matter may be

remanded to the Tribunal to examine the licenced panel valuer of

Municipal Licenced Engineers, as otherwise, the claimants would

suffer loss as their house got damaged.

8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the claimant

contended that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation

for the victims who sustained loss (physical loss and other

damages) in the road accidents, and hence, an opportunity is to be

given for the claimants to examine the Municipal Valuer, to prove

the damages sustained to the claimants.

9. It is pertinent to mention that mere marking of the document

is not sufficient but the author of Ex.A-20 or any other panel

valuers of Municipal Licenced Engineers, are to be examined to

establish that the claimants sustained damages. In the absence of

proper oral evidence, the Tribunal cannot grant compensation,

though the document is before it.

GAC, J MACMA.No.87 of 2018

10. Admittedly, the 1st respondent/Driver drove the vehicle in

rash and negligent manner at a high speed, lost control over the

bus, dashed against the road divider, went on to the wrong side, hit

M.Rajesham (deceased) at his residence and due to which, the

deceased died on the spot and of the impact of the speed of the bus,

the front portion of the house got collapsed. Therefore, the

claimants have filed the claim petition for the death of the deceased

as well as for the damages of the house, totalling to a tune of

Rs.30,00,000/-.

11. Taking into consideration the contention of the learned

counsel for the claimants, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit

case to remand the matter to the Tribunal only for the purpose of

examining the Panel Valuer with respect to Exs.A-20 to appreciate

the damages to the house of the claimants and for passing

appropriate orders.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of setting aside the

orders of the Tribunal in MVOP.No.150 of 2014, dated

07.03.2017. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a

GAC, J MACMA.No.87 of 2018

direction to examine the Panel Valuer of Municipal Licenced

Engineers with respect to Ex.A-20 as aforesaid and further directed

to apply multiplier '13' while calculating the loss of income of the

deceased as per the proposition laid down in Smt.Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation & another1, as the age of the

deceased was 50 years as on the date of the accident. Further, the

Tribunal shall dispose of the case afresh within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of this order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 28.07.2022

ajr

(2009) 6 SCC 121