S.Shoba 3 Others vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3009 Tel

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

              M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1384 and 2407 of 2015

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1384 of 2015 filed by the Road

Transport Corporation and M.A.C.M.A.No.2407 of 2015 filed by

the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, are

directed against the very same judgment and decree, dated

24.11.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1711 of 2013 on the file of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge

(Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the

Tribunal").


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 filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

against the respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation of

Rs.17,00,000/- for the death of one S.Saidulu (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased"), who died in an accident. It is

stated that on 06.04.2013 while the deceased was proceeding in

GSD, J Macma_1384 and 2407_2015

Auto bearing No.AP 24 TA 1921 from Nalgonda to Cherlapally

and when the auto reached near the house of dealer Yadaiah in

Cherlapally, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 27 Z 0068 driven by

its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and

dashed against the auto, due to which the deceased sustained

fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is also stated that prior

to his death, the deceased was hale and healthy and was

earning Rs.12,000/- per annum as an auto driver and due to

sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their source

of income, therefore they laid claim against the respondents

claiming compensation as the accident occurred due to the rash

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

4. Before the Tribunal, the respondents filed written

statement denying all the averments in the claim-petition

including the manner in which the accident took place, age,

avocation and income of the deceased. It is further stated that

the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the

claim-petition.

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

following issues:-

GSD, J Macma_1384 and 2407_2015

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased, S.Saidulu, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 27 Z 0068?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents,

neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was

occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C.

bus and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.8,89,000/- with

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

date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly

and severally. Challenging the same, the present Appeals came

to be filed by the R.T.C. and the claimants respectively.

8. Heard and perused the record.

GSD, J Macma_1384 and 2407_2015

9. 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

Sethi and others1 the claimants are entitled future prospects

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

10. Learned Standing Counsel for the R.T.C. would submit

that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the

deceased while driving the auto and as such, the respondents

are not liable to pay the compensation.

11. A perusal of the material on record would show that there

is no evidence on record to show that the accident occurred due

to the negligence of the deceased, rather the evidence come on

record that on the date of the accident while the deceased was

proceeding in the auto from Nalgonda to Charlapally and when

they reached near the house of dealer Yadaiah, the offending

bus bearing No.AP 27 Z 0068 of Kodada bus depot came in

opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner came on its wrong side and dashed the auto, due to

which the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot

2017 ACJ 2700

GSD, J Macma_1384 and 2407_2015

and the owner of the auto also sustained injuries. P.W.2, who

was an eye witness to the accident was also examined before

the Tribunal and proved the manner of accident. Hence, there

is no force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for

the respondents that there is a contributory negligence on the

part of the driver of the deceased. Therefore, I see no reason

to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

R.T.C. bus.

12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a

perusal of the impugned order would show that after

considering the age and avocation of the deceased the Tribunal

has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.65,000/- per

annum. 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, annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.91,000/-

(Rs.65,000/- + Rs.26,000/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla

GSD, J Macma_1384 and 2407_2015

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are

four in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his

personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased

to the family would be Rs.68,250/- per annum. As per Inquest

Report the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of the

accident, the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Adopting multiplier

'17', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.68,250/- x 17 -

Rs.11,60,250.00. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/-

under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case

(1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to

Rs.12,37,250/-.

13. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1384 of 2015 filed by the

R.T.C. is dismissed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.2407 of 2015 filed by

the claimants is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,89,000/- to

Rs.12,37,250/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5%

p.a. from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal till the

date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly

and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_1384 and 2407_2015

manner as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 23.06.2022 gkv