Apsrtc Now Tsrtc vs Nagula Laxmi And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1523 Tel

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

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1907 of 2017
                               and
                  M.A.C.M.A.No.983 of 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      These two appeals are directed against the very same

award and therefore, they are heard together and being

disposed of by this common judgment.



2.    M.A.C.M.A.No.1907 of 2017 is preferred by the Telangana

State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, (for short

'TSRTC') and M.A.C.M.A.No.983 of 2018 is preferred by the

claimants challenging the quantum of compensation, against

the award and decree, dated 24.03.2016 rendered in O.P.No.18

of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (for short 'the

Tribunal').


3.    For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are

referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.


4.    The claimants, who are the wife and children of one

Nagula Thirupathi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'),
                                                                       MGP,J
                                                       MACMA No.1907 of 2017
                                                                         and
                                    2                   MACMA No.983 of 2018



filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988,   (for   short    'the   Act')    claiming   compensation          of

Rs.6,50,000/- on account of the death of deceased in a road

accident that occurred on 25.08.2014.          It is stated that, on

25.08.2014, while the deceased returning from his duty at

NTPC, Ramagundam, on his two wheeler, i.e. Bajaj CT-100

bearing No.AP 15 R 4315 and when he reached near NTPC

Gate-B, APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 3406 was negligently

stopped on the road by its driver-Respondent No.1 and the

deceased hit the said Bus and fell down. As a result, he

sustained head injury and other bodily injuries. Immediately,

he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Godavarikhani,

from there he was shifted to Medicare Hospital, Karimnagar,

wherein he was treated as in-patient from 25.08.2014 to

28.08.2014. As the condition of the deceased was critical, he

was shifted to Deccan Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein he

succumbed to injuries on 06.09.2014 while undergoing

treatment. On account of death of the deceased, the claimants

lost their source of income. It is also stated that the accident

occurred due to negligent parking of the RTC Bus bearing

No.AP 29 Z 3406 by its driver-respondent No.1, and the said MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and

Bus is owned by TSRTC-Respondent No.2, hence, respondent

Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation

to the claimants.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed counter

denying the allegations in the petition and contended that there

is no negligence on the part of the driver of RTC Bus bearing

No.AP 29 Z 3406 of Karimnagar-II Depot, in fact, the deceased

himself drove his motor cycle i.e. Bajaj CT-100 bearing No.AP

15 R 4315 in rash and negligent manner with high speed and

hit the Bus, which was stationed on the extreme left side of the

road, from its rear right side. The age and income of the

deceased at the time of accident was also disputed. It is stated

that the compensation claim is excessive.

6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, the claimant

No.1, who is wife of the deceased, was examined as PW.1 and

Exs.A-1 to A-6 marked. On behalf of respondents, respondent

No.1, who is driver of offending RTC Bus, was examined as

RW.1 but no documents were marked on their behalf.

7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that the deceased died in a road transport MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and

accident and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.3,82,834/-

with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of deposit directing respondent No.2 to deposit the

compensation amount within one month from the date of order.

Aggrieved by the same, both the appeals have been filed.

8. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the

claimants is that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation

of Rs.3,82,834/- against the claim of Rs.6,50,000/-, which is

meager and contrary to well settled principles laid down under

Moto Accident Compensation cases. It is the further contention

of the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal failed

to follow the decided case laws while assessing the

compensation and the Tribunal also erred in not awarding

Rs.1,70,000/- towards medical bills, treatment charges and

incidental charges as the deceased was treated at different

hospitals from 25.08.2014 to 06.09.2014. It is also the

contention of learned counsel for the claimants that the

Tribunal awarded less compensation under conventional heads

and prayed to enhance the same.

MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and

9. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2-TSRTC

submits that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight

of evidence and probabilities of the case. It is also submitted

that the Tribunal grossly erred in entertaining the claim

petition and also making the TSRTC liable to pay compensation

and entertaining though the accident occurred due to the gross

negligence on the part of the deceased, who was riding a motor

cycle at the material time of accident. It is further submitted

that the petition of the claimants is liable to be dismissed for

non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of

motor cycle are necessary parties to the petition. It is further

submitted that the Tribunal failed to see the provisions of the

Motor Vehicles Act before fixing the liability on the TSRTC. It is

also submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the

annual income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- without any

documentary evidence. It is also submitted that interest

awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and it should not be

more than 7.5% per annum.

10. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Sunil Kumar1

the Apex Court held as under:-

AIR 2017 SC 5710 MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and

"8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid Section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act it is not open for the Insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim."

11. In the instant case also, the claimants filed claim-petition

under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act. Since the claim-petition

filed under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act, it is not open for the

RTC to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the

deceased. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and

Counsel for the RTC as to the contributory negligence on the

part of the deceased is hereby rejected.

12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the

most important point which arises for consideration is,

"whether in the petitions filed under Section 163-A of the

M.V.Act, the ratio or law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt.

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2;

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others3, or Reshma Kumari vs Madan Mohan4 is applicable".

13. After gone through the above three cases carefully, this

Court is of the considered opinion that in those matters, the

Apex Court was considering applicability of proper multiplier,

proper deductions; compensation for the loss of future

prospects and proper compensation under conventional heads,

only in respect of the claims arising under Section 166 of the

M.V.Act.

14. In paragraph 17 of the judgment in the case of "Smt.

Sarla Verma (2 supra) the Apex Court observed as under:-

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2017 ACJ 2700

(2013) 9 SCC 65 MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and

"17. The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was amended by Act 54 of 1994, inter alia inserting Section 163A and the Second Schedule with effect from 14.11.1994. Section 163A of the MV Act contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Second Schedule contains a Table prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and income of the deceased. It specifies the amount of compensation to be awarded with reference to the annual income range of Rs.3,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. It does not specify the quantum of compensation in case the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/-. But it provides the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. The table starts with a multiplier of 15, goes upto 18, and then steadily comes down to 5. It also provides the standard deduction as one-third on account of personal living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, where the application is under section 163A of the Act, it is possible to calculate the compensation on the structured formula basis, even where compensation is not specified with reference to the annual income of the deceased, or is more than Rs.40,000/-, by applying the formula : (2/3 x AI x M), that is two-thirds of the annual income multiplied by the multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased would be the compensation."

15. Even in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay

Sethi and others (3 supra), the Larger Bench of the Apex

Court considered the applicability of proper multiplier,

compulsory deductions for personal expenses of the deceased,

additional compensation for the loss of future prospectus and

proper compensation under conventional heads that is loss of MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and

consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, only in the

claim Petitions filed under Sections 166 of M.V. Act. Thus, the

law laid down by the Apex Court in above referred cases is not

applicable in the claim petitions filed under section 163-A of the

M.V. Act.

16. In the case on hand, the claim petition is filed under

Section 163-A of the MV Act. Therefore, while determining the

compensation, only the structural formula formulated under

Section 163-A and Second Schedule of the M.V.Act can be

considered. As per the evidence on record, the deceased was

aged about 42 years as on the date of his death. Therefore, as

per the structural formula under Section 163-A Second

Schedule of M.V. Act, proper multiplier applicable in the case

on hand is '14' as adopted by the Tribunal. After considering

the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has fixed the

income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per annum, which is

just and reasonable. From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting

1/3rd amount towards his personal and living expenses, the

contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.26,666/-

per annum. Adopting multiplier '14', the total loss of MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and

dependency comes to Rs.3,73,334/- (Rs.26,666/- x 14). In

addition to the above, the claimants also entitled to

Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.2,000/- towards

funeral expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and

Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. As observed above, the ratio

of Pranay Sethi (3 supra) is not applicable to the claim petition

filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. Therefore, no

compensation can be added towards loss of future prospects.

So also, under conventional head, compensation of Rs.77,000/-

cannot be awarded, as contended by the learned Counsel for

the claimants. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to just

compensation of Rs.3,97,834/-.

17. Insofar as the rate of interest 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 others5.

18. In the result, MACMA No. 1907 of 2017 filed by the

TSRTC is allowed in part to the extent of reduction of rate of

5 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and

interest on the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per annum. MACMA No. 983 of

2018 is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal from Rs.3,82,834/- to Rs.3,97,834/-. 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

respondent No.2. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned

between the claimants in the same proportion in which original

compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal. Time to

deposit the compensation is one month from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment. No costs.

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI

Dt.06.04.2023 svl MGP,J MACMA No.1907 of 2017 and

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.1907 of 2017 and M.A.C.M.A.No.983 of 2018

Dt.06.04.2023

svl