The Telangana State Road ... vs Manthri Vijay Shanker And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2747 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                M.A.C.M.A. No.504 of 2018


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellants herein i.e.,

TSRTC against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.279 of 2012

by which the petition filed by the respondents/petitioners

herein was allowed and a sum of Rs.5,93,000/- was awarded

as compensation payable by the appellants herein.

2. The appellants have claimed that the judgment and

decree of the Tribunal i.e., XII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Secunderabad, is contrary to law and against the facts

and evidence on record. The Tribunal erred in awarding a sum

of Rs.5,93,000/- along with costs and interest @ 9% per

annum against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- preferred by the

respondents. According to the appellants, the Tribunal

committed irregularity in holding that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus.

The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that claimants

did not add the insurer of the motorcycle used by the

deceased and his friend. They have also found fault with the 2 SSRN, J M.A.C.M.A.No.504 of 2018

award on the ground that the respondents/petitioners could

not examine the eye-witnesses to the accident named in the

charge sheet but they have examined PW.2 who is not shown

as eye-witness to the accident. It is also the case of the

appellants that the deceased and his friend could not have

obtained license because they are minors, thereby, the

appellant corporation is not liable to pay any compensation.

Since the claim petition was filed by the respondents under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants have to

prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the crime

vehicle and in case of failure to do so, the tribunal ought to

have drawn an adverse inference that the accident occurred

due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the

motorcycle. The appellants disputed the findings of the

Tribunal by which the notional income of the deceased was

assessed as Rs.72,000/- per annum and they pleaded that

since the deceased was below 18 years old, notional income

must be taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum. The appeal is filed

on the ground that the Tribunal awarded excess amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/-

3 SSRN, J M.A.C.M.A.No.504 of 2018

for funeral expenses, therefore, they sought for setting aside

the award.

3. Before going into the merits of the appeal, it would be

appropriate to see what the case of the respondents before

the lower Court was and what was the claim of the appellants

herein and as to how the Tribunal came to a conclusion in

awarding Rs.5,93,000/- towards compensation. According to

the petition filed in MVOP No.279 of 2012, it is alleged that on

27.11.2012, at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased Rohan and his

friend were proceeding from Yadagirigutta to Secunderabad

on motor-bike bearing No. AP 13N 9405, and when they

reached outskirts of Bhongir, the driver of RTC bus bearing

No. AP 11Z 2839 came in opposite direction, at high speed, in

a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, due

to which both the riders sustained injuries and died on the

spot.

4. A case was registered by police, Bhongir u/s 304-A of

IPC against the driver of the bus. The respondents/petitioners

have claimed that the deceased was hale and healthy, he was

9th class student, if there was no such accident, he would

have bright future and attributing the rash and negligent 4 SSRN, J M.A.C.M.A.No.504 of 2018

driving to the bus driver, the respondents/petitioners sought

for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- together with

costs and interest @ 18% per annum. The first appellant

herein appeared before the Tribunal, filed a counter stating

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

bus. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the

deceased himself. The petition was bad for non-joinder of

owner and insurer of motor-cycle as parties to the petition,

and sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. During the trial, the respondents/petitioners have

examined two witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.X1.

The appellants herein did not choose to examine any witness

and no document was marked on their behalf.

6. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence,

the lower Court passed an award granting a sum of

Rs.5,93,000/- towards compensation.

7. The point for consideration in the present appeal is

whether the trial Court granted excess amount, if so, whether

the same can be reduced, and to what extent?

5 SSRN, J M.A.C.M.A.No.504 of 2018

8. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted

that the Court below without considering the evidence on

record and inspite of the fact that the accident occurred due

to the rash and negligent driving by the deceased and his

friend who are minors at the time of accident, awarded excess

amount towards compensation to the respondents/claimants.

He has also argued that the Court below considered the

income of deceased @ Rs.72,000/- per annum instead of

considering Rs.30,000/- per annum, thereby, awarded huge

amount of Rs.4,68,000/- under the head of loss of

dependency. He has also argued that the Court below without

following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay

Sethi and Ors reported in 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC), awarded

an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection

and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses but in the above

referred Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to

observe that reasonable figures on conventional heads,

namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral

expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/-,

thereby, he sought for setting aside the award.

6 SSRN, J M.A.C.M.A.No.504 of 2018

9. As per the material placed before this Court, it is very

clear that the deceased Rohan while proceeding from

Yadagirigutta to Secunderabad on a motorbike along with his

friend met with an accident near Bhongir and died on the

spot. The respondents/claimants have pleaded that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the

driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 2839. In support of

the said claim, the father of the deceased was examined as

PW.1 and one more witness is examined as PW.2. The trial

Court rightly appreciated that simply because PW.2 attended

the Court without summons, it does not mean his evidence is

not trustworthy. PW.2 deposed about the manner of the

accident. The appellants herein could not adduce any

evidence or proof to show that there was rashness or

negligence by the deceased and his friend. It may be true

that the deceased was minor at the time of accident but there

is no evidence to believe that the rider of the bike was a

minor and he was not having any license. More over the

appellant herein could not produce any evidence to show that

the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of

rider of the motorbike.

7 SSRN, J M.A.C.M.A.No.504 of 2018

10. The Court below assessed the income of the deceased

as Rs.72,000/- per annum. In order to arrive this figure, the

Court relied on the Judgments reported in Lata Wadhwa and

Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2001) 8 SCC 197], Kishan

Gopal and Another V. Lala and Others [2013 ACJ 2595

(SC)]. According to the evidence placed before the Court,

the deceased was 16 years old, and respondents/claimants

lost their son at the tender age. There is no dispute about the

deceased was a student and even though, there is no

evidence before the Court that he was a brilliant student, the

observation of the Court below that an amount of Rs.72,000/-

can be considered as annual income of the deceased is a quite

reasonable figure, thereby, I am not intending to disturb the

said finding. It is true, the trial Court awarded Rs.1,00,000/-

towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards

annual expenditure. In the Judgment relied on by the counsel

for the appellants i.e., in Pranay Sethi case, the Hon'ble

Apex Court was pleased to observe only a sum of Rs.70,000/-

i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards

loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenditure can be awarded. Therefore, the amount awarded 8 SSRN, J M.A.C.M.A.No.504 of 2018

under the head of loss of affection and funeral expenditure to

the extent of Rs.1,25,000/- shall be reduced to Rs.70,000/-

and to that extent the appeal can be allowed.

11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the

compensation amount from Rs.5,93,000/- to Rs.5,38,000/-

with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

petition till the actual deposit of the amount. While filing the

present appeal, the appellants have moved an application vide

I.A.No.1 of 2018 and sought for stay. This Court granted stay

subject to condition of appellants depositing 50% of the

compensation amount together with interest and

proportionate costs, therefore, the appellant shall deposit the

remaining amount and the respondents/claimants are entitled

to the proportionate shares as per the order of the Court

below.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                               __________________________
                                SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J
         th
      15      June, 2022.
       9                   SSRN, J
          M.A.C.M.A.No.504 of 2018




PLV