A P S R T C vs A Jangamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 5015 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2718 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the award dated 20.07.2018

in M.V.O.P.No.841 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

(for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed

by respondents herein seeking compensation was allowed-in-part,

awarding Rs.8,46,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-APSRTC and

the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the

record.

3. The respondents herein filed claim application seeking

compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of death of the

deceased A.Saidulu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 22.10.2008 at 02:10 p.m. According to the claimants,

on that day, the deceased was driving motor cycle and while

crossing the road opposite Nalanda Junior College, Dilsuknagar,

Hyderabad at that time, one RTC bus bearing AP 28 Z 3254 driven

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

dashed his motorcycle and another pedestrian. As a result, the

deceased fell on the road and received head injury. Immediately,

he was shifted to Kamala Hospital, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and

while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the same on the same

day. Police, Malakpet registered a case in Cr.No.331 of 2008

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

Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. Claimant No.1 is the mother and

claimants 2 and 3 are the brother and sister of the deceased.

According to the claimants, the deceased was working as a painter

and earning Rs.22,000/- per month and contributing the same to the

family. The deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident.

4. The appellants-APSRTC filed counter opposing the claim

and denying their liability to pay the compensation.

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

Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver. The Tribunal

further held that the claimant was entitled for a total compensation

of Rs.8,64,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by

the same, the insurer filed the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that

the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimants

despite there being no negligence on the part of the driver of the

RTC bus and, in fact, the deceased drove the motorcycle in a rash

and negligent manner. He would further contend that the Tribunal

erred in fixing the monthly income of Rs.4,500/- without any

proper evidence and also calculated the future prospects on the said

income and the compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive

and unwarranted.

7. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, who was examined on

behalf of the claimant and eye witness to the accident, would reveal

that he was present at the spot when the accident took place and the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

RTC bus by its driver. Considering the evidence of the claimants

in particular the eye-witness P.W.3 and F.I.R., charge sheet, and

inquest report in Exs.A-1 to A-3, the Tribunal had rightly held that

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

RTC bus which dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result

of said accident, the deceased sustained head injury and later

succumbed to the same in the hospital.

8. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was a painter

and earning Rs.22,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal, after

taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants,

fixed an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month towards income of the

deceased and also added 40% future prospects as the deceased was

aged 30 years, though the counsel for the appellants disputed the

fixation of quantum of income, and arrived at Rs.6,300/- per month

and Rs.75,600/- per annum. The Tribunal, after deducting one

third towards personal expenses assessed the contribution to the

family at Rs.50,400/- (Rs.75,600/- minus Rs.25,200/-) and after

applying the multiplier '16' appropriate to the age of the deceased,

assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.8,06,400/- (Rs.50,400/- x

16). From a perusal of the evidence on record and the award of the

Tribunal, the same would justify fixation of such income by the

Tribunal, as the deceased was doing painting contract works by

engaging workers as per the evidence of P.W.2. The Tribunal has

also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.15,000/-

towards transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- towards funeral

expenses, making up a total of Rs.8,46,400/-.

9. In the circumstances, I am of the view of that the Tribunal

had awarded just and reasonable compensation based on oral and

documentary evidence adduced by the claimants and I do not find

any justifiable grounds to interfere with the said award.

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

as to costs.

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

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 11.10.2022 Lrkm