The Andhra Pradesh State Road ... vs Madugundi Pushpa 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5426 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.1856 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the award dated 14.09.2015 in

M.V.O.P.No.504 of 2014, on the file of the XXVII Additional

Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short 'the Tribunal), wherein

the said claim application filed by respondents herein seeking

compensation was allowed, awarding Rs.13,31,600/- with interest

at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-APSRTC and

learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the record.

3. Respondents herein filed claim application seeking

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

deceased Madugundi Raju in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 06.09.2014. Respondent No.1 is the wife, respondent

Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters and respondent No.4 is the father of

the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased

along with his friends were doing painting work to electrical poles

which were laid in the middle of the road in between Athvelly and

Medchal and at about 01:30 p.m., while they were working near

Masjid at Athvelly, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6277,

proceeding from Medchal side towards Toopran side, driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic

rules, lost control over the bus and dashed the deceased, as a result

of which he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Police,

Medchal registered a case in Cr.No.344/2014 against the driver of

the RTC bus for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC

and after investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The deceased was hale and

healthy, aged about 28 years and working as painter under a

contractor and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month and contribute the

same to his family. Owing to his sudden demise of the deceased,

the claimants became destitute and lost the income source.

4. The appellant-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 there was some contribution by the deceased

towards the incident and there is any amount of negligence on

the part of the driver of the RTC bus resulting in the death of the

deceased. The Tribunal further held that the claimants were

entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,31,600/-. Accordingly,

an award was passed for the said amount with interest at

7.5% per annum. Challenging the same, the APSRTC filed the

present appeal on the ground that the Tribunal erred in awarding

compensation by taking the contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased as 20% instead of 50%; that the Tribunal also erred in

taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month instead

of taking the notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month and the

award of compensation is on the higher side; and that the Tribunal

had wrongly awarded compensation under the other heads.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-APSRTC reiterated the

same grounds during the course of his submissions.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned

award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal had rightly

awarded compensation by taking the contributory negligence of

the deceased as 20% and also awarded compensation under other

heads. The same needs no interference and as such prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

8. The following points arise for determination:

(i) whether the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is 20% or 50% in the accident?

(ii) whether the award of compensation to respondents is just and reasonable?

POINTS (i) & (ii):

9. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that he along his friends and

the deceased were working as painters under contractor on a salary

of Rs.8,000/- per month. On the fateful day i.e., 06.09.2014, they

were attending painting work to electrical poles laid in the middle

of NH-44 road in between Athvelly to Medchal. At about 1.30

p.m., while they were doing the work near Masjid at Athvelly,

one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6277, driven by its driver in a

rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules, lost

control over the bus while proceeding from Medchal side towards

Toopran side and dashed the deceased, as a result of which he

sustained injuries and died on the spot. The accident occurred

only due to the rash and negligent driving the bus. P.W.2 is the

colleague of the deceased working under the same contractor and

he had directly witnessed the accident.

10. The appellant-APSRTC examined the driver of the bus as

R.W.1. In his evidence, he stated that on the date of accident, he

was moving the bus on the road beside the road divider. As one

person suddenly jumped on to the road in front of the bus, he

applied brakes immediately, but the bus just touched the said

person. At that time, a truck was coming on his left side and

there was an electrical pole to his right and there was no scope

for him to take on either side also to avoid the accident. He further

deposed that the case before the criminal court ended in acquittal.

The Tribunal held that the deceased suddenly jumped on to the

road in front of the bus which act is a sudden one, before the driver

of the bus could become conscious and the damage could have

occurred by the time the driver could become conscious before the

vehicle touched the deceased.

11. From the evidence available on record, oral and

documentary, and after perusing the testimony of R.W.1, the driver

of the bus, it appears that there is some contribution of the

deceased to the incident. Keeping in view the available evidence,

the Tribunal had rightly held that the deceased had also contributed

to some extent in the said accident and fixed the contributory

negligence as 20%. I do not find any justifiable grounds to accede

to the contention of learned counsel for the appellant to enhance

the contributory negligence to 50%. The finding of the Tribunal

fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at

20% is based on proper appreciation of evidence, both oral and

documentary, and the same needs no interference.

12. So far as the award of compensation to the claimants is

concerned, the Tribunal had taken into consideration the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and Rs.72,000/- per annum

(Rs.6,000/- x 12) based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and in

view of the fact that the deceased was working as a painter.

The work of painting also comes under the category of skilled

employment and fixing of monthly salary at Rs.6,000/- is just and

reasonable. After deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses,

the Tribunal had arrived at Rs.54,000/- per annum (Rs.72,000 -

Rs.18,000/- i.e., Rs.72,000/- x 1/4). The Tribunal had rightly

added 50% on the income of the deceased towards future

prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.

PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS1, and fixed the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.81,000/- (Rs.54,000/- + Rs.27,000/-)

and by taking the aged of the deceased as 28 years had

rightly applied the multiplier '17' as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT

CORPORATION2 and awarded compensation of Rs.13,77,000/-

(Rs.81,000/- x 17) towards loss of dependency. By applying

20% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased,

the Tribunal had arrived at Rs.11,01,600/- (Rs.13,77,000/- x 20%).

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional

heads i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium, Rs.1,00,000/-

towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral

expenditure, Rs.5,000/- towards transport are set aside, as the said

amounts are on higher side and not as per the settled principle of

law.

13. [ In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay

Sethi's case, the claimants are entitled for compensation of

2017 ACJ 2700

2009(6) SCC 121

Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads i.e., Rs.40,000/- towards

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

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. At the same time, claimants

2 and 3, being the minor children of the deceased are entitled for a

compensation of Rs.50,000/- each towards parental consortium and

claimant No.4, who is father of the deceased, is entitled for

Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium, as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM3.

Thus, in all the claimants are awarded Rs.13,11,600/-

(Rs.11,01,600/- Rs.70,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.40,000/-). The

award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.

14. In the result, the appeal is allowed-in-part. There shall be no

order as to costs.

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

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 28.10.2022 Lrkm

3 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904