Smt. N.Laxmamma 2 Others vs A.P.S.R.T.C. Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6227 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No. 190 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in

M.V.O.P. No.1823 of 2013, dated 26.08.2014, the present

appeal is filed by the claimants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners, on 20-01-2012 at about 7-00

p.m. the deceased Nagella Narsimha along with N.Kistaiah was

proceeding as a pillion rider on Chetak bearing No. AP 24 7033

towards Nalgonda and on the way when they reached the

outskirts of Malkapur village near Borrallaguda Stage, at that

time one RTC Bus bearing No. AP 24 Z 0023 being driven by its

driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed,

suddenly applied brakes after overtaking scooter, due to which,

rider of Chetak dashed the bus from behind. Due to which the

deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on the vital

parts of the body. After the accident, he was shifted to

Government Area Hospital, Choutuppal in 108 Ambulance but

he died on the way to hospital. Thus the petitioners are

claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the respondent

Nos.1 and 2-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Corporation.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter disputing the

manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased.

It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the

petitioners is excessive.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-

Corporation. Perused the material available on record.

6. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards compensation to the

appellants-claimants against the respondents along with

proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of filing of the petition till realization, as against the claim

of Rs.6 lakhs.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has

submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of

P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Ex.X1, established the fact that

the death of the deceased-Nagella Narsimha was caused in a

motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondents-Corporation sought to sustain the impugned

award of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has

awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no

interference by this Court.

9. Here it is pertinent to state that originally the claim

petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1989.

But the tribunal without assigning any reason framed issue

under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and decided the issue

in favour of the petitioners. However, based on the evidence on

record, the Court can consider Section 166 instead of Section

163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. In Bhupati Prameela and others

vs. Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and others1, the

Division Bench of this Court held as under:

" Thus it appears that it is the duty of the Courts to do justice to the parties and while doing justice, if the technicalities come in the way, much importance need not be given to these technicalities because, ultimately, justice has to be done to the parties. Moreover, when sub-section(4) of Section 166 of the Act envisages that the Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act as an application for compensation under the Act, there is nothing wrong in treating an application filed under Section 163-A of the Act as an application under Section 166 of the Act. In view of the above and

(2011) 10 SCC 756

considering the object of the Act, we are of the view that the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act can be treated as an application under Section 166 of the Act."

In view of the above Judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court, the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor

Vehicles Act can be treated as an application under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has framed issue on

rash and negligence under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act

and accordingly settled the issue in favour of the

appellants/petitioners.

10. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged

58 years and earning Rs.7,500/- per month on agriculture.

However, as there is no income proof, the Tribunal has taken

the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum, which is

very less. Therefore, considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the income of the deceased can be taken at

Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, in light of 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 and since the deceased was

2017 ACJ 2700

aged about 58 years at the time of accident, 10% of the income

is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to

Rs.6,600/- (6,000 + 600 = 6,600). Since the deceased left as

many as three persons as the dependants, 1/3rd of his income

is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.

Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.4,400/-

(6,600 - 2,200 = 4,400) per month. Since the deceased was

aged about 58 years at the time of accident, the appropriate

multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3 is "9". Then the loss

of dependency would be Rs.4,400/- x 12 x 9 =Rs.4,75,200/-.

In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the

claimants are granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the

Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, in all, the

petitioners are entitled for Rs.5,52,200/-.

11. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.2,10,000/- to Rs.5,52,200/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the

date of realization, to be payable by the respondents jointly and

severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the

Tribunal. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such

deposit of compensation amount by the respondents-

Corporation, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 29.11.2022 pgp