Telangana High Court

Bogaji Budevi 2 Others vs The Managing Director, Apsrtc, on 23 June, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1432 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the award and decree, dated 20.03.2015 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.75 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Adilabad

(for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred

the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter

be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who are the

wife, son and mother of one Bogaji Ramesh (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased") filed a petition, claiming

compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased,

who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on

18.03.2009. It is stated that on 18.03.2009 the deceased left on

his Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 1 D 7992 from Pardi B Village for

the purpose of attending union meeting of masons and after

completion of the meeting while he was returning to his village

GSD, J Macma_1432_2015

and when he reached the agricultural fields of Marvadi Gangubai

situated in the outskirts of Jainath, one R.T.C. bus bearing

No.AP 10 Z 9981 came in opposite direction in high speed and in

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

which the deceased sustained grievous head injury and died on

the spot. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased

was hale and healthy and was doing mason work and earning

Rs.6,000/- per month. On account of death of the deceased, the

petitioners lost their source of income therefore, they filed the

aforesaid O.P. against the respondent.

4. The respondent filed counter denying the averments in

the petition including the manner in which the accident took

place, age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is

specifically stated that the deceased himself was responsible for

the accident and that there was no rash and negligence on the

part of the driver of the R.T.C. bus and as such the respondent

is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

GSD, J Macma_1432_2015

1) Whether the accident in which the deceased died, occurred on 18.03.2009 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed in the petition, if so, to what extent and against whom?

3) To what relief?

6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2

were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the

respondent, neither oral nor documentary evidence was

adduced.

7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus and accordingly

awarded an amount of Rs.4,45,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to

be paid by the respondent.

8. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the

claimants is that as per the principles laid down by the Apex

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

GSD, J Macma_1432_2015

Sethi and others1, the claimants are also entitled to the future

prospects and also Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads.

9. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would

submit that the issue with regard to the future prospects has

been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (1 supra) and

as per that judgment, the claimants are entitled 40% amount

towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the

compensation towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly

granted by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced.

10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place has become final as the same is

not challenged by the respondent.

11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is

the case of the claimants that though the claimants claimed

that the deceased was doing mason work and earning Rs.6,000/-

per month, but the Tribunal has taken the income of the

deceased at Rs.3,000/-. Admittedly, the deceased was doing

2017 ACJ 2700

GSD, J Macma_1432_2015

mason work, therefore, considering the age and avocation of

the deceased, this Court inclined to fix the income of the

deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Apart from the same, the

claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future

prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, monthly income of the

deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). Out of

which 1/3rd is to be deduced towards personal and living

expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/3rd amount

towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the

deceased to the family would be Rs.4,200/- per month. Since

the age of the deceased was 39 years at the time of the

accident, the appropriate multiplier is '15' as per the decision

reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another2. Adopting multiplier 15, his total loss of earnings

would be Rs.4,200/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.7,56,000/-. The claimants

are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral

expenses and loss of consortium, as per Pranay Sethi's case (1

supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,33,000/-.

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GSD, J Macma_1432_2015

12. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of

Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of

compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim

made which is impermissible under law.

13. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another3, the Apex

Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4 held as

under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

14. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to

above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what

has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a

beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_1432_2015

claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always

endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and

reasonable extent.

15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from