Telangana High Court

Sadika Begum Siddika Negum 4 Ors vs The Ap State Road Transport ... on 15 March, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3203 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the award and decree, dated 07.09.2007 passed in

O.P.No.1653 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court

(Fast Track Court), Hyderabad (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. The facts, in issue, are as under:

4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle

accident that took place on 09.06.2006. It is stated that on

09.06.2006 at about 9.30 hours, the deceased boarded the RTC bus

bearing No.AP 11 Z 5218 at Motigalli "T" Junction and at that time

the driver of the said bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner,

GSD, J Macma_3203_2008

due to which the deceased fell down from the bus, came under

rear wheel of the bus and sustained injuries. Immediately, the

deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and

later shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, where he

succumbed to injuries. It is also stated that the deceased was a

tailor and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. As the accident

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

RTC bus, the respondents, who are custodians of the said bus, are

jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. The respondents filed counter denying the averments in the

petition including the manner in which the accident took and also

denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is also

stated that the deceased tried to catch the running bus, slipped

and fell down on the road and hence the accident was occurred

due to the negligence of the deceased and not due to the

negligence of the driver of the RTC bus.

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

following issues:

GSD, J Macma_3203_2008

1) Whether the accident resulting in death of Mohd. Ahmed occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5218?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

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

examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that the driver of the RTC bus was responsible for

the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,92,250/-

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

date of realization to be paid by the respondents.

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the

Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased not the age

of his mother for assessing the loss of dependency in view of the

law laid down by the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin

GSD, J Macma_3203_2008

Kumar Sharma and others1. It is further submitted that though

the deceased was getting Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal has

erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per

annum. It is further submitted that as per the principles laid down

by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others2, the claimants are also entitled to the

future prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the

deceased may be taken into consideration reasonably for assessing

loss of dependency and prayed to enhance the same.

11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the R.T.C.

submits that the income of the deceased has rightly been taken by

the Tribunal as Rs.15,000/- per annum since no documents have

been produced to prove the income of the deceased. On the point

of future prospects, learned Counsel submits that the matter has

been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2 supra) and as

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

future prospects. It is further submitted that the compensation

2015 (6) SCC 347

2017 ACJ 2700

GSD, J Macma_3203_2008

towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly granted by the

Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced.

12. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the

Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its

driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of

P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically

observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Bus and has answered in

favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 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 RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 5218.

13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

though the claimants claimed that the deceased was a tailor and

was earning Rs.6,000/- per month but no proof of income has been

filed. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar3 the Apex Court held

that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be

reasonably estimated minimum at Rs.3,000/- per month for any

(2001) 8 SCC 197

GSD, J Macma_3203_2008

non-earning member. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the

income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- 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 (2 supra). Therefore, monthly income of the

deceased comes to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-). Since the

deceased was a bachelor, his personal living expenses shall be 50%

of the said amount, i.e., Rs.2,100/- per month. In view of the

decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar

Sharma and others (1 supra) when the deceased was a bachelor,

the age of the deceased has to be considered while determining

the multiplier and not the age of the mother. Since the age of

the deceased was 22 years at the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the decision reported in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation4. Adopting multiplier 18,

his total loss of earnings would be Rs.2,100/- x 12 x 18, which

comes to Rs.4,53,600/-. The claimants are also entitled to

Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per

Pranay Sethi's case (2 supra). Apart from the above, the

claimants are also entitled to Rs.27,250/- towards medical

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_3203_2008

expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in all the claimants

are entitled to Rs.5,13,850/-.

14. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company

submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as

compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now

awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible

under law.

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

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another5, the Apex

Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh6 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."