Telangana High Court
The Tsrtc vs J.Jhansi Rani, on 12 December, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.926 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri Thoom Srinivas learned standing
counsel for TSRTC for the appellants and learned counsel Sri.
J.Pramod Goud for respondents.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/
TSRTC challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in
M.V.O.P.No.718 of 2017, dated 02.05.2022 and thereby, seeking
to set-aside the award against the appellants-TSRTC.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 01.12.2016, while the deceased i.e., J.Kumara Swamy
returning to his residence after completing his duty as
Technician-C (Engg.Supp) at National Institute of Nutrition,
Hyderabad, on his motor cycle Hone Neo bearing registration
No.TS-08-EC-0950 and when he reached Tilaknagar cross-roads
signal, RTC bus bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-5709 came in
LNA,J
same direction in rash and negligent manner at high speed and
suddenly swerved to the left side without horn or indication and
dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down from
the two wheeler and the bus ran over him, causing grievous
injuries and the motor cycle was badly damaged. Immediately,
he was shifted in 108 Ambulance to Yashoda Hospital and then
to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta and while undergoing treatment
he died on 13.12.2016. The Police, Amberpet P.S., registered a
case in Crime No.483/2016 under Sections 337 IPC and the
same has been subsequently altered to Section 304-A of IPC
after the death of the deceased and filed charge sheet against
the driver of the crime vehicle.
5. The claimants, i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 3 are wife, son
and mother of the deceased, have filed claim petition against the
appellants herein under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,1989
claiming compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-. During the pendency
of O.P., petitioner no.3 died and her legal representatives are
respondents 1 and 2 herein.
LNA,J
6. It is contended that the deceased was hale and healthy at
the time of accident, as Technician-C at National Institute of
Nutrition, Hyderabad, Tarnaka, the deceased was drawing
salary of Rs.53,545/- per month and his entire earnings were
contributing to the welfare of his family. The deceased was aged
52 years and has 8 years of service left and had the deceased
lived upto the age of superannuation, he would have got
promotion and his salary would have been revised by 30% to
40% hike and would have received retirement and terminal
benefits as well as pension. Due to sudden death of the
deceased, claimants are put to irreparable loss and mental
agony.
7. The appellants herein filed counter and denied all the
allegations, i.e., the manner of occurrence of accident, the age and
income of the deceased and further contended that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of motor
cycle and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of RTC
Bus and finally, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
LNA,J
8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issued:
i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred
resulting in death of deceased J.Kumara Swamy,
due to rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus
bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-5709 by its driver ?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is
the liability of the respondents ?
iii) To what relief?
9. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the
claimants, P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6
and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of appellants,
neither any witness was examined nor any document was
marked.
10. The Tribunal on due consideration of the evidence and
material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus
bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-5709 and awarded
compensation of Rs.45,03,544/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The
LNA,J
respondent Nos.1 and 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable
to pay the said compensation.
11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned
counsel for appellants-TSRTC submitted that the Tribunal erred
in awarding the compensation amount against the facts of the
case and evidence on record. The Tribunal ought to have
appreciated the fact that no independent eye witness was
examined to prove the manner of accident and Tribunal erred in
adding 15% towards future prospects even though the deceased
is going to retire in another four years. The Tribunal also erred
in awarding amounts towards funeral expenses, loss of love and
affection and loss of estate and loss of consortium and also
interest and finally, submitted that award passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
Consideration :
12. With regard to the main contention of the learned counsel
that the Tribunal committed irregularity in holding the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC
Bus. The Tribunal considered the evidence of eye witness, P.W.2,
LNA,J
who deposed that he witnessed the accident and also the charge
sheet, as per which, the Police have examined four eye witnesses
and have found that the driver of RTC bus was guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The Tribunal came to
conclusion held that the driver of RTC Bus is responsible for
causing the accident with rash and negligent driving and there is
no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
13. The other contention raised by the appellants is that the
Tribunal erred in awarding of 15% of the income of the deceased.
The Tribunal on considering the age of the deceased as 55 years
nine months as on the date of the accident, as per Ex.X2-service
record and applying the principles as per the decision of Hon'ble
National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 ,
added 15% of the income towards future prospects.
14. In Pranay Sethi, Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.3 held
that an addition of 15% of actual salary to the income of the
deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was between the age of 50 to 60 years, should
be made.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
LNA,J
15. In view of the above decision, the Tribunal had rightly
added the 15% of the actual salary to the income of the
deceased.
16. With regard to the quantum of interest awarded, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court very recently in the case of Anjali and others vs
Lokendra Rathod and others 2 decided on 06.12.2022, awarded
interest @ 9% per annum. Following the above decision, in
considered opinion of this Court, the interest awarded by the
Tribunal at 9% per annum is just and proper.
Conclusion:
17. In the absence of any material on the part of appellants-
TSRTC, it is difficult to accept the contention of doubting the
accident, the accidental death of the deceased and awarding of
compensation by the Hon'ble Tribunal. The said grounds raised by
the appellants-TSRTC company thus stands answered in the
negative.
2023(1) ALD 107(SC)
LNA,J
18. In the result, this Appeal stands dismissed. The appellants
are directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount already deposited by
the appellants. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
[[
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 12.12.2023
kkm
