The Apsrtc, Hyderabad vs B Swathi, Karimnagar Dist 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5162 Tel

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

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.2854 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Road Transport

Corporation, questioning the judgment and decree, dated

20.06.2016 made in O.P.No.109 of 2014 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI

Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (for short, the

Tribunal).

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

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

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-

against the respondents on account of death of the deceased,

Bejjanki Madhusudhan, in the accident that occurred on

06.10.2010 involving the bus bearing No. AP 28Z 5708 being

driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2.

According to the claimnats, on the fateful day, while the

deceased was driving his car towards Karimnagar to Hyderabad,

the offending bus came in opposite direction in rash and

negligent manny and dashed the car. As a result, the deceased

MGP, J Macma_2854_2016

sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to

the claimants, the deceased was aged about 29 years, working

as car driver and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore,

they laid the claim for Rs.10.00 lakhs against the respondents.

4. While the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte, the

respondent No. 2 contested the claim petition. After considering

the claim, counter and the evidence brought on record, the

tribunal has allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of

Rs.11,68,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum and

costs to be paid by the respondent No. 2. Challenging the same,

the present appeal is preferred by the respondent No. 2-RTC.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on

record.

6. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant-RTC is that in the absence of any proof as to the

income of the deceased, the learned tribunal ought not to have

taken the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. It is further

contended that the tribunal ought not to have taken the

multiplier '17' without there being any evidence adduced by the

claimants to prove the age of the deceased as 29 years.

MGP, J Macma_2854_2016

Further, it is contended that as per the decision of the Apex

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and others1, since the deceased was self-employed, the

future prospects, considering the age of the deceased, should be

40%, but the tribunal has erroneously added 50%. Even, the

amounts awarded by the tribunal under the conventional heads

are excessive and it should be Rs.77,000/- only. It is lastly

contended that the rate of interest fixed by the tribunal at 9% is

too high and it should not be more than 6%.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the claimants has sought to sustain the impugned

order contending that the monthly income of the deceased

assessed by the tribunal at Rs.4,500/- is, in fact, not on par

with the prevailing minimum wages and that considering the

fact that there are five dependants, the tribunal ought to have

deducted 1/4th but not 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the

deceased from the monthly gross income. Therefore, the

learned counsel sought for dismisal of the appeal.

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_2854_2016

8. Insofar as the manner in which the accident took place is

concerned, a perusal of the impugned judgment would show

that the tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the

accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

vehicle by the driver of the offending bus, and having considered

the evidence of P.W.2, eyewitness, coupled with the

documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the

accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the

driver of the offending bus and has answered the issue in favour

of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore, I see

no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in this

regard.

9. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

admittedly, the claimants have not let in any evidence, either

oral or documentary, to prove their claim that the deceased was

earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month by working as car

driver. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar2, the Apex Court

has held that even there is no proof of income and earnings, the

income can be reasonably estimated. Since the deceased was

aged about 29 years at the time of accident and he was able

(2001) 8 SCC 197

MGP, J Macma_2854_2016

bodied person, the tribunal has assessed the monthly income of

the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, which, in the opinion of this Court,

cannot be said to be higher. Admittedly, the deceased was 29

years at the time of the accident. As rightly pointed out by the

learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, as per the decision

of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the tribunal ought to

have added future prospects to the established income of the

deceased at 40%, but not 50%. Therefore, by adding 40%

future prospects to the established monthly income of the

deceased i.e., Rs.4,500/-, the future monthly income of the

deceased comes to Rs.6,300/-. Inasmuch as there are five

dependents, the tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th but not

1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore,

after dedcuting 1/4th from the monthly gross income of the

deceased, the net monthly income that was being contributed to

the family would be Rs.4,725/- (Rs.6300 minus Rs.1,572/-

being 1/4th therefrom). Thus, the annual contribution to the

family comes to Rs.56,700/-. As per Ex.A.4, Post-Mortem

Examination Report, the age of the deceased was 29 years and

therefore, the tribunal has rgihtly applied the multiplier '17'.

Thus, by applying the multiplier '17', the loss of dependency

MGP, J Macma_2854_2016

comes to Rs.9,63,900/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court

in Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded

by the tribunal under the conventional heads i.e., consortium &

love and affection to claimant Nos. 4 & 5 is restricted to

Rs.77,000/-. However, the minor children i.e., claimant Nos. 2

& 3 are granted Rs.50,000/- each, towards parental consortium

in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General

Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram

and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for the

total compensation of Rs.11,40,900/-. Insofar as the interest

awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the claimants are

entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization,

as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.

Rajbir Singh and others4. Hence, the interest granted by the

Tribunal @ 9% per annum is reduced to 7.5% per annum.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part reducing the

compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.11,68,000/- to

(2018) 18 SCC 130 4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP, J Macma_2854_2016

Rs.11,40,900/- in addition to reducing the interest from 9% to

7.5% per annum. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

dismissed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 18.10.2022 Tsr/pss

MGP, J Macma_2854_2016

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

M.A.C.M.A. No.2854 of 2016

DATE: 18-10-2022