Apsrtc vs Ramavath Ravi 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5641 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.2317 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the award dated 27.04.2016

in M.V.O.P.No.927 of 2013, on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim

application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein seeking

compensation was allowed-in-part, awarding the compensation of

Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of

petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel

for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the record.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein filed a claim application

seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of death of the

deceased boy Ramavath Akhil, who died in a motor vehicle

accident that occurred on 07.11.2013 at about 07:30 AM near

Laxman Naik Thanda when he was going to Sai Siddhartha School

at Mallepalli on the road side. Claimant No.1 is the father,

claimant No.2 is the mother and claimant Nos.3 and 4 are sister and

brother of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day,

the deceased boy was standing and waiting for the bus to go to

school and meanwhile one RTC Bus bearing No.AP 26 Z 0128,

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, was trying to

overtake the car, which was proceeding ahead of the bus and in that

process, dashed the deceased. Owing to the said accident, the head

of the deceased broke and his brain came out and died on the spot.

The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was

aged 7 years studying U.K.G in Sai Siddhartha School, Mallepalli

and was a brilliant student. On a complaint, police registered a

case against the driver of the bus for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A IPC and later filed the charge sheet.

4. Respondent - A.P.S.R.T.C., filed written statement opposing

the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the

following issues for trial:

"(i) Whether the deceased by name Ramavath Akhil died due to rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 26 Z 0128?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?"

6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimants and none

was examined and no exhibits were marked on behalf of the

respondent corporation.

7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver. The

Tribunal further held on issue No.2 that the claimants were entitled

for a total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per

annum. Aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC filed the present

appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the

Tribunal committed error in awarding a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-

towards the compensation along with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Learned counsel further submits that the accident occurred was due

to the negligence on the part of the deceased minor child, but not

because of the negligent driving of the RTC bus and that the award

of compensation by the Tribunal is on higher side.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants while

supporting the award of the Tribunal would contend that the

Tribunal has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in

proper perspective and the same does not warrant any interference.

10. The evidence of PW1, who is the father of the deceased boy,

is that on the date of incident at about 07-30 AM, his son

Ramavath Akhil was waiting for a bus at Laxman Naik Thanda, in

order to go to his school 'Sai Siddhartha School' at Mallepalli and

in the meantime, an RTC bus driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed came from Mallepalli and was

trying to overtake the car, which was proceeding ahead of the bus

and in that process, the RTC bus dashed the minor boy, who was

waiting for the bus and as a result of the accident, he died on the

spot. From a perusal of the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1

to A5, it is seen that the claimants established that the accident

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

its driver. On behalf of the respondent corporation, no oral and

documentary evidence was adduced to disprove the case of the

claimants.

11. Coming to the award of compensation, the Tribunal has

considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in

LATHA WADHWA v. STATE OF BIHAR1 and awarded

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of pecuniary

damages and further relying on the decision of R.K. MALIK AND

OTHERS v. KIRAN PAUL AND OTHERS2 awarded an amount

of Rs.75,000/- under the head of non-pecuniary damages and an

amount of Rs.75,000/- towards future prospects of the child. In all,

the Tribunal had awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.

12. However, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has relied

on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in KISHAN GOPAL

AND ANOTHER v. LALA AND OTHERS3, wherein the Apex

Court while referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

LATA WADHWA v. STATE OF BIHAR4 held at para 36 of

judgment that the compensation amount for the children between

2001(8) SCC-197

2009 ACJ 1900 3(2014) 1 SCC 244

4(2001) 8 SCC 197

the age group of 5-10 years should be three times. In other words,

it should be Rs.1.5 lakhs to which under the conventional heads

a sum of Rs.50,000/- should be added and thus total amount in

each case would be Rs.2 lakhs. However, in Kishan Gopal's case

(3 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has fixed the notional income

and applied multiplicand and awarded compensation for the death

of the deceased boy. In the said case, the age of the deceased boy

was '10' years and the Apex Court had taken into consideration the

above age and took his notional income at Rs.30,000/- and further

taking the young age of the parents, viz., the mother, who was

about 36 years, at the time of accident, as per the decision in

SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION5,

applied the multiplier '15' and awarded compensation of

Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads towards

loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites.

13. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal held

that the deceased boy was aged '7' years at the time of accident.

By applying the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

2009(6) SCC 121

Court in Kishan Gopal's case (3 supra) to this case where the

deceased boy was aged 7 years and was assisting the claimants

and had he been alive, he would have certainly contributed

substantially to the family of the claimants by working hard.

Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to take his notional

income at Rs.30,000/- per annum and further taking into

consideration the young age of the parents namely, the mother,

who was 25 years, as on the date of accident and by applying the

multiplier '17' as per Sarla Verma's case (5 supra), the same

works out to Rs.5,10,000/- ( Rs.30,000/- x 17). As per the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM @

CHUHRU RAM6, the parents of the deceased boy are entitled to

filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each. An amount of Rs.10,000/-

towards is awarded towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the

claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-

(Rs.5,10,000/- + Rs.80,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) with interest at 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition. But, in view of the decision

of the Apex Court in RANJANA PRAKASH AND OTHERS v.

6 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER7, this court

cannot increase the compensation in an appeal filed by the

owner/insurer. Undisputedly, the claimants did not independently

challenge the award of compensation. In an appeal filed by the

owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek

enhancement of compensation by urging any new ground, in the

absence of any appeal or cross-objections. Therefore, in the given

facts and circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

is just compensation and needs no interference.

14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 04.11.2022 Yvk

(2011) 14 SCC 639