Telangana High Court

Badavath Bhulamma Another vs Depot Manager Another on 20 October, 2022

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

  HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1440 of 2013

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the orders in MVOP.No.1213 of

2010, dated 31.07.2012 on the file of the IX Additional Chief

Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as

arrayed in the O.P.

3. The appellants are the claimants. The O.P. was filed

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

of death of the deceased/Badavath Ravi @ Raju, in the accident

which occurred on 10.04.2010 at 11.00 a.m., while the deceased

was proceeding on his motor cycle towards Mamidala Village in

order to attend a marriage and when he reached Mamidala 'X'

roads, one APSRTC bus bearing No.28-Z-3179 of Godavarikhani

Depot in high speed, rash and negligent manner, dashed against the

motor cycle of the deceased, as a result, the deceased and the

pillion rider fell down, sustained serious injuries and were shifted

to Government Hospital, Gajwel and from thereto Gandhi Hospital

Secunderabad and while undergoing treatment, the deceased

GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013

succumbed to injuries on 13.04.2010. Basing on the complaint of

the family member of the deceased, a case was registered against

the driver of the APSRTC Bus in Crime No.26 of 2010 for the

offences under Sections 337, and 304-A of IPC. The claimants are

the parents of the deceased.

4. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the

respondents disputing the age, income and driving licence of the

deceased. It was further contended that there was no negligence on

the part of the driver of the Bus.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the

claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,12,000/- but

restricted the claim for Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per

annum and apportioned the said amount equally to the claimants,

who are the parents of the deceased.

6. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal for

enhancement of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence

would be with respect to the quantum only.

GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013

7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused

the record.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

claimants that the Tribunal has erred in restricting the

compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- though the claimants are entitled for

Rs.6,12,000/- fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per

month. It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that

the income of the deceased has to be considered as Rs.6,500/- per

month as per the Apex Court proposition in Syed Sadiq and

others vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.

Ltd.,1 as the accident occurred in the year, 2010.

9. The Tribunal has also erred in making calculation by

deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/2 as the deceased was an unmarried

person. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants that the appellants are entitled for

compensation under the head of future prospects and conventional

heads and prayed to allow the appeal.

2014 ACJ 627

GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent-RTC contended that there is no error or irregularity in

the orders passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same

and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal confirming the

judgment of the Tribunal.

11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is

no dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on

10.04.2010. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased, who deposed

about the age of the deceased as 20 years as on the date of accident

and the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and the

deceased was also prosecuting his studies. Exs.A-1 to A-5 are the

certified copies of FIR, inquest report, post mortem report of the

deceased, charge sheet and MVI report. Exs.A-2 and A-3 disclose

that the deceased was aged about 20 years. Further, Ex.A-4

discloses that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident due to

the rash and negligent act of the driver of the RTC Bus. Ex.A-5 is

the MVI report, which clearly discloses that there are no

mechanical defects in the Bus at the time of accident. The charge

sheet discloses that the driver of the Bus drove the Bus in a rash

GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013

and negligent manner and hit the deceased and as a result, the death

of the deceased occurred. The oral evidence of PW.1 and the

documentary evidence in Exs.A-1 to A-5 corroborates with each

other as to the manner in which the accident had occurred and as to

the age of the deceased. Admittedly, there is no documentary

evidence before the Court to prove the income of the deceased as

Rs.3,500/- per month. But as per the proposition laid in

Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Limited2, the income of the deceased was

taken as Rs.4,500/- per month even in the absence of documentary

evidence.

12. It is pertinent to mention that PW.1 pleaded in the

claim petition and also deposed evidence before the Court, as that

of the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- p.m. But the Tribunal

considered the above proposition of the Apex Court in

Ramachandrappa's case (supra) and considered the income of the

deceased as Rs.4,500/- p.m. Therefore, the contention of the

appellant counsel as to the income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/-

p.m. cannot be accepted in view of the specific pleadings of the

(2011) 13 SCC 236

GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013

claimants. Admittedly, the appeal is filed by the claimants for

enhancement of compensation, therefore, it is not proper to restrict

the income of the deceased as per the pleadings and this Court is of

the considerable view that the Tribunal has correctly fixed the

income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- p.m., even in the absence of

documentary evidence.

13. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident

that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,00,000/- towards future loss of

income restricting the claim, though the loss of earnings have been

calculated to Rs.6,12,000/-.

14. Admittedly, the deceased is aged about 20 years as on

the date of the accident and the income of the deceased can be

taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. If 40% future prospects is added, it

would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500+1800). As the deceased is an

unmarried person, 50% of his earnings has to be deducted towards

his personal expenses. Thus, his contribution towards family would

come to Rs.3,150/-. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation &

GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013

another3, the multiplier applicable is '18' for the age group of 15

to 25 years. If the annual income and multiplier '18' are applied,

then, the loss of earnings of the deceased would be Rs.6,80,400/-

(Rs.3,150 X 12 X 18).

15. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others4,

claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards

consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and another

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation

under the following heads;

    1.   Loss of dependency                        Rs.6,80,400/-
    2.   Funeral expenses                          Rs.15,000/-
    3.   Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each)             Rs.80,000/-
    4.   Loss of estate                            Rs.15,000/-
         TOTAL                                     Rs.7,90,400 /-

17. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of, granting a total

compensation of Rs.7,90,400/- with costs and interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization. Therefore, both the appellants/claimants being the

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2017 ACJ 2700

GAC, J MACMA.No.1440 of 2013

parents of the deceased, are equally entitled for the said amount

and they are permitted to withdraw the same, as the accident

occurred in 2010.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.