Puppala Rajitha 2 Others vs Apsrtc Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6125 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                      MA.CMA.NO.763 OF 2016

                              JUDGMENT

Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the court of

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - II Additional

District Judge at Warangal in MVOP.No.1066 of 2012, the claimants

filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The deceased is one Puppala Ramesh and claimant No.1 is his

wife and claimants 2 and 3 are his children.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 1.1.2012 when the deceased

was proceeding along with his friend B.Srinivas on a motor cycle bearing

No. AP 36 AN 5467 from Pochammakunta to Naimnagar, and that when

the motorcycle reached Police Headquarters, bus bearing No. AP 10 Z

7908 proceedings from Warangal to Kazipet side came in high speed, in

a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, and tried to overtake

the motorcycle driven by B.Srinivas, and in the process, dashed the

motorcycle from back side. The deceased Puppala Ramesh, who was

travelling as a pillion rider, fell down from the motor cycle and the tyres

of the bus ran over the legs of Puppala Ramesh and caused fatal injuries.

Immediately, they were shifted to M.G.M. Hospital and from there, he

was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, and he died while

undergoing treatment. Police registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2012, and

after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of

the bus of the Corporation.

4. The further case of the claimants is that the deceased was a

Carpenter by profession and was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per

month and was contributing entire earnings to the family. With the death

of the deceased, they lost their source of income, love and affection, and

are facing severe hardship. With these averments, they filed claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming an

amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

5. The respondent No.1, which is the Corporation filed counter

affidavit and contested the claim.

6. The 2nd respondent, who is the mother of the deceased, filed

counter affidavit stating that she is also entitled for compensation for the

death of her son in the road accident and sought for awarding

compensation to her.

7. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, who is the

wife of the deceased and also the evidence of P.W.2, who is the eye

witness to the accident and who is the rider of the motor cycle on which

the deceased was traveling as a pillion rider, coupled with Exs.A-1 to

A-6, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the bus of the Corporation and that the deceased died due to

the said accident.

8. As per Ex.A-1 complaint the deceased was found to be aged 32

yeas and as per Ex.A-4 death summery, he was found to be aged 34 years.

Therefore, the Tribunal has taken his age as 34 years. I do not find any

reason to interfere with the same. Further, taking the income of the

deceased Rs.4,000/- per month and by deducting 1/4th towards personal

expenses and by applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal granted an

amount of Rs.5,76,000/- towards loss of dependency. Tribunal further

granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the 1st claimant, who is the wife of

the deceased towards loss of consortium; Rs.25,000/- towards funeral and

transportation charges, and thus arrived at Rs.6,51,000/-, but however

restricted to Rs.6,00,000/-, and apportioned the compensation among the

claimants 1 to 3 and respondent No.2. The Tribunal granted interest at

the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till

the date of realization.

9. As stated above, seeking enhancement of compensation, the

claimants filed the present appeal.

10. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Maddisetty, learned counsel for the

claimants and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent No.1 - Corporation.

11. The case of the claimants with regard to accident is already

noted above and the Tribunal by considering the evidence of P.W.2, an

eye witness, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6, recorded finding of fact that

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

the bus of the Corporation and that the deceased died due to the injuries

sustained in the accident. In the present appeal, the only dispute is with

regard to quantum.

12. In the claim petition it is stated that the deceased was a

Carpenter by profession. Ex.A-3 is the inquest report and in the said

document, the profession of the deceased is noted as carpenter. The wife

of the deceased who was examined as P.W.1 also categorically deposed

that the deceased is a carpenter by profession. On behalf the Corporation,

no rebuttal evidence was led with regard to the profession of the

deceased. In these circumstances, the deceased can be taken as a

carpenter by profession and the finding of the Tribunal that there is no

evidence with regard to the profession of the deceased, is without any

basis, and the same is accordingly set aside.

13. In the present case, the accident has taken place on 1.1.2012

and the deceased succumbed to the injuries caused in the accident and as

per the evidence and material on record, the deceased is a Carpenter by

profession and his age is taken as 34 years. The Apex Court in the

decision reported in JAGDISH v. MOHAN1, considered the accident

that took place on 24.11.2011, wherein the deceased, was found to be a

carpenter by profession. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the

Apex Court held that "12. . . The appellant was a skilled carpenter and

self-employed. The claim of the appellant that his earnings were

Rs.6,000/- per month cannot be discarded. This claim cannot be

regarded as being unreasonable or contrary to a realistic assessment of

the situation on the date of the accident."

14. In the present case, the accident occurred on 1.1.2012 and the

deceased herein is also a carpenter by profession, and having regard to the

facts and circumstances of the case, and following the judgment of the

Apex Court (supra), I am inclined to take the monthly income of the

deceased as Rs.6,000/- per annum. The income of the deceased taken by

the Tribunal at Rs.4,000/-, in the light of the above facts and

circumstances of the case, and the judgment of the Apex Court, requires

(2018)4 SCC 571

to be modified accordingly. Thus the annual income of the deceased is

taken as Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/-).

15. The aged of the deceased is taken as 34 years as on the date of

his death. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PRANAY SETHI2, for the age group of

the deceased, an addition of 40% has to be made to the established

income of the deceased. 40% of Rs.72,000/- comes to Rs.28,800/-. Thus

the annual income of the deceased including future prospects comes to

Rs.1,00,800/-.

16. The number of dependants of the deceased are four in number

and hence as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA vs.

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION3, deduction towards living and

personal expenses shall be at the rate of 1/4th. If 1/4th is deducted from

Rs.1,00,800/-, the income that the deceased would be contributing to his

family comes to Rs.75,600/-. The appropriate multiplier to the age group

of the deceased as per the same judgment of the Apex Court is '16'. Thus

the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.75,600/- x 16 =

Rs.12,09,600/-).

17. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case

(supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- towards conventional

AIR 2017 SC 5157

(2009)6 SCC 121

heads. The amount granted by the Tribunal under these heads is

accordingly modified.

18. Further, the claimants 2 and 3 are minors as on the date of the

accident and hence as per the judgment of the Apex Court in MAGMA

GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM4, they are entitled

to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. Thus, under

these heads, claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.80,000/-

19. Thus, the amount of Rs.6,000/- granted by the Tribunal is

enhanced to Rs.13,66,600/- (Rs.12,09,600 + Rs.77,000/- + Rs.80,000/- =

Rs.13,66,600/-) with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from

the date of the claim petition till the date of realization and the respondent

No.1 - Corporation is liable to pay the same.

20. The apportionment of compensation among the claimants and

respondent No.2 shall be in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal.

Further, the deposit of amount in nationalized bank and its withdrawal,

shall also be as ordered by the Tribunal.

21. The claimants shall pay the deficit court. Any amount already

deposed by the Corporation shall be given credit to. The compensation

(2018)18 SCC 130

shall be deposed by the respondent No.1 within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

22. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated

above.

23. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No order as to costs.

----------------------------------------------

M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J DATE:24--11--2022 AVS