Tsrtc, Secunderabad vs P Rama Devi, Secunderabad 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1761 Tel

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

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.623 OF 2017
                                   and
     CROSS OBJECTIONS No.13080 OF 2017 (I.A.No. 5 of 2017)

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      M.A.C.M.A.No.623 of 2017 is preferred by the Telangana State

Road Transport Corporation (previously, Andhra Pradesh State Road

Transport Corporation), questioning the award and decree, dated

10.06.2016 made in M.V.O.P.No.152 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, the Tribunal). Challenging the

very same order and decree, the claimants filed cross-objections

No.13080 of 2017 seeking enhancement of compensation.


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

as per their array before the Tribunal.


3.    Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the

respondents claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death of

one P.S.Sai Ram, son of claimant Nos. 1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as

"the deceased"), in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on

22.02.2013. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the deceased was

proceeding on the Motor cycle bearing No. AP 09 8569 as a rider from

Neredmet towards Chandragiri colony and when he reached near Krupa MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.623 OF 2017 and X-OBJS No.13080 OF 2017 (I.A.No. 5 of 2017)

Complex, one RTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4226, being driven by its

driver, came in rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the

motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down

on the road and sustained grievous bleeding injuries and died on the

spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 29 years and

earning Rs.25,000/- per month as faculty in Altitude classes. Due to the

sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their bread winner,

love and affection. Therefore, they laid the claim petition against the

RTC, seeking compensation of Rs.35.00 lakhs.

4. Before the Tribunal, the RTC contested the claim by filing counter

inter alia contending that the claim made by the claimants is excessive

and disputing the manner of the accident.

5. Considering the claim, counter filed by the RTC, and on evaluation

of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has partly

allowed the M.V.O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.26,25,000/- with

7.5% interest per annum to be paid by the RTC.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the RTC has vehemently argued

that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence brought on record in

proper perspective and erroneously held that the accident had occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. In

fact, the accident took place due to the contributory negligence on the MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.623 OF 2017 and X-OBJS No.13080 OF 2017 (I.A.No. 5 of 2017)

part of the deceased, who was riding the motor cycle and while

overtaking the bus, he applied sudden breaks to avert the accident with

the opposite vehicles and came in contact with the rear wheels of the

bus. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory

negligence even on the part of the deceased. As regards the quantum of

compensation, it is contended that though the claimants have asserted

that the deceased was aged 29 years and earning Rs.25,000/- per month

as faculty in Altitude classes, in the absence of any valid proof in that

regard, the Tribunal should have restricted the income of the deceased.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants/cross

objectors has contended that the tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards

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

are very less and tribunal should have awarded more amount. He further

contended that the Tribunal has erred in not adding future prospects as

per the decision of Apex Court.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned

Standing Counsel for the RTC. Perused the material available on record.

10. It is the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the

RTC that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence even

on the part of the deceased as the deceased riding his motor cycle

without observing the moving traffic and while overtaking the bus, he

applied sudden breaks to avert the accident with the opposite vehicles MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.623 OF 2017 and X-OBJS No.13080 OF 2017 (I.A.No. 5 of 2017)

and came into contact with the rear wheels of the bus and therefore, the

Tribunal should have apportioned contributory negligence. As seen from

the record, Ex.A.1, FIR, was registered against the driver of the crime

vehicle. Further, after due investigation into the crime, police laid the

charge sheet, Ex.A.4, against the driver of the offending vehicle stating

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

offending vehicle and the driver was charged for the offence under

Sections 304-A IPC. That apart, P.W.2, the eyewitness to the accident,

clearly stated that the accident occurred only due to the rash and

negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Though it is the case of the

RTC that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased,

for the reasons best known to it, the RTC did not take any steps to

summon the driver of the offending bus or to examine any passengers of

the bus, to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased, who are the best persons to speak in this regard. Further,

no contra evidence was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 2,

eyewitness to the accident to discredit his testimony. Therefore,

considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 & A.4, FIR and charge

sheet, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred only due

to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, which needs no

interference by this Court.

11. As regards the quantum of compensation, according to the

claimants, the deceased was aged 29 years and earning Rs.25,000/- per MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.623 OF 2017 and X-OBJS No.13080 OF 2017 (I.A.No. 5 of 2017)

month as faculty in Altitude classes. In order to prove the income of the

deceased, the claimants filed Exs.A.5, copy of job offer letter issued by

Altitude classes, Nallakunta; A.6, salary certificate issued by Altitude

classes, Nallakunta examined P.W.3, director of Altitude classes.

Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the

Tribunal has rightly fixed the annual income of the deceased at

Rs.3,00,000/-(Rs.25,000/- x 12). However, the Tribunal has not

deducted any amount towards income tax and professional tax. Hence,

considering the year of accident, this Court is inclined to deduct 10%

towards income tax as per the income tax slab for the financial year

2012-13 and Rs.2,400/- towards professional tax. After deducting the

income tax and professional tax, the annual income of the deceased

works out to Rs.2,67,600/- (Rs.3,00,000 - Rs.30,000 - Rs.2,400). Since,

the deceased was 29 years old, 40% future prospects is added as per the

principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1. Therefore, the

annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,74,640/- (Rs.2,67,600/- +

Rs.1,07,040/-). Since the deceased was bachelor at the time of the

accident, after deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses of

the deceased, the net annual income that was being contributed to the

family of the deceased comes to Rs.1,87,320/-. As the age of the

deceased was 29 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate

2017 ACJ 2700 MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.623 OF 2017 and X-OBJS No.13080 OF 2017 (I.A.No. 5 of 2017)

multiplier is '17' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation2. Adopting multiplier '17', the total loss of

dependency works out to Rs.31,84,440/- (Rs.1,87,320/- x 17). That

apart, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.33,000/- under conventional

heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Further, the claimant Nos. 1

& 2 being parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under

the head of filial consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in

Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru

Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.32,97,440/-.

12. In the result, while dismissing the M.A.C.M.A.No.623 of 2017 filed

by the RTC, the cross-objections filed by the claimants are partly allowed

enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.26,25,000/- to

Rs.32,97,440/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at

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

Time to deposit the amount is one month. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI

25.04.2023 gms

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

(2018) 18 SCC 130 MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.623 OF 2017 and X-OBJS No.13080 OF 2017 (I.A.No. 5 of 2017)

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.623 OF 2017 and CROSS OBJECTIONS No.13080 OF 2017 (I.A.No. 5 of 2017)

25.04.2023 gms