Telangana High Court

T.S.R.T.C. vs Shahnaz Begum on 13 December, 2023

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

         M.A.C.M.A.Nos.617 of 2022 and 114 of 2023


COMMON JUDGMENT:

M.A.C.M.A.No.617 of 2022 is an appeal by the claimants

and M.A.C.M.A.No.114 of 2023 is an appeal by the T.S.R.T.C.

Considering the fact that these two appeals arises out of the

same award dated 20.04.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2421 of

2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-the

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the

Tribunal"), these two appeals are taken up together and decided

by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts leading to filing of these two appeals are that

M.V.O.P.No.2421 of 2018 was filed under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the wife and children of Abdul

Hameed (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), against

respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-

for the death of the deceased in an accident. It is stated that on

10.09.2018 between 6:30 a.m., and 7:00 a.m., while the

deceased, who was an auto driver, along with other auto drivers

was waiting for the passengers at Gachibowli, the R.T.C. bus

bearing No.AP-11-Z-6172 driven by its driver in high speed and

rash and negligent manner, dashed him and others, as a result

of which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died on

the spot. It is also stated that the deceased was hale and

healthy, aged about 50 years and was earning Rs.14,000/- per

month as auto driver. As the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C bus, the claimants

filed the claim-petition against the T.S.R.T.C.

4. The respondents filed counter denying the manner in

which the accident took place including the age, avocation and

income of the deceased. It is stated that the quantum of

compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to

dismiss the petition.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

the following issues:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of Abdul Hameed, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing registration No. AP 11Z 6172, by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents ?

3. To what relief?

6. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the

claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were

marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary

evidence was adduced.

7. The Tribunal, on conclusion of the pleadings and evidence

placed on record by the parties, vide the impugned award, held

that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus, and accordingly, awarded

an amount of Rs.11,59,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by

the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the

same, the present appeals came to be filed by the claimants as

well as the T.S.R.T.C.

8. Heard Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the

claimants and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for

the T.S.R.T.C. Perused the record.

9. The primary ground of challenge by the TSRTC in MACMA

No.114 of 2023 was firstly, so far as doubting the accident itself,

in which the deceased died and secondly, the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

10. MACMA No.617 of 2022 is an appeal filed by the

claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation. The

primary ground seeking for enhancement of compensation was

that the Tribunal had not awarded the compensation as claimed

by the claimants and secondly, the Tribunal had erred in

awarding 10% towards future prospects of the deceased, so also

the consortium to the claimants.

11. During the hearing of appeals, the learned counsel for

claimants submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the

income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/-, instead of Rs.14,000/-.

He further submitted that Tribunal erred in applying multiplier

'11', instead of '13', so also awarding consortium.

12. As regards the contention of the appellant-TSRTC in

MACMA No.114 of 2023 is concerned, it has been argued by the

learned counsel for TSRTC that the Tribunal committed

irregularity in holding that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driver of the RTC Bus without there being any

evidence on record. He further contended that the Tribunal

ought to have appreciated the fact whether there is any

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was

driving the auto at the time of accident and was trying to

overtake another auto near bus stop and in that process, the

deceased lost his control and dashed the bus.

13. Coming to the first ground raised by TSRTC i.e., doubting

the accident that occurred on 10.09.2018, this Court is of the

opinion that TSRTC has failed to discharge its obligations so far

as proving the contention raised by it by placing cogent,

substantial material and evidence in support of its contention.

TSRTC neither examined any witness nor marked any document

to support their contention.

14. PW.2-A.Prasad, who has been examined as an eye

witness, has categorically stated that he noticed the accident,

which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drive of

the crime vehicle. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined, nothing

was elicited to discredit his testimony. Thus, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly came to

conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of crime vehicle.

15. In the absence of any material on the part of TSRTC, it is

very hard to accept the contention of doubting the accident and

the accidental death of the deceased said to have taken place on

10.09.2008. The said ground raised by the appellant-TSRTC

thus stands answered in the negative.

16. In so far as the other contention raised by the learned

counsel for TSRTC with regard to the quantum of monthly

income of the deceased, the appellants/claimants, except

claiming monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,000/- as

auto driver based on Ex.A6-original driving license, have not

placed any material or evidence before the Tribunal in proof of

monthly income of the deceased. In the absence of any proof

with regard to the income of the deceased, the MACT had erred

in considering the monthly income of the deceased as

Rs.10,000/- per month and thus, this Court is of the considered

view that notional income of the deceased can be taken at

Rs.8,000/- per month, taking into consideration of his age, self-

employment as an auto driver and considering the dependents

numbering to six.

17. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the

Tribunal had rightly taken the notional income of the deceased

at Rs.10,000/- per month and in support of his contention, he

relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

[from Karnataka (DB)] in Kalavati and others v. Mirza Kaisar

Baig and another 1. In the said decision, the deceased working

as lorry driver, whereas in the present case, the deceased was

auto driver and therefore, the facts in the said decision and the

facts in the present case are different and thus, the said

decision relied upon by the learned counsel for claimants does

not come to the aid of the claimants.

18. Coming to the appeal in MACMA No.617 of 2022 filed by

the claimants, on perusal of the entire award, considering the

age of the deceased as 53 years as on the date of accident, as

per Ex.A6-original driving license, the Tribunal had added 10%

of the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects.

Since the deceased was self-employed and was aged about 53

years as on the date of accident, in view of the paragraph-59.4

of the decision of Hon'ble National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs.

Pranay Sethi and others 2 , addition of 10% towards future

prospects is just and proper and in considered opinion of this

Court, no need to interfere with the impugned award in respect

of awarding of loss of future prospects.

19. Since the dependents of the deceased are six in number,

one-fourth of the income towards personal and living expenses

2022 LawSuit(SC) 1159

(2017) 16 SCC 680

is to be deducted as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

and another 3 and the same was deducted towards personal

expenses by the Tribunal and therefore, no need to interfere

with the said contention raised by the claimants.

20. With regard to the multiplier, as per the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the Tribunal

had rightly applied multiplier '11' since as per Ex.A6-original

driving license of the deceased, the age of the deceased was 53

years as on the date of accident and no error committed by the

Tribunal as contended by the learned counsel for appellants.

21. With regard to the award of consortium, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court very recently in the case of Anjali and others vs

Lokendra Rathod and others 4 decided on 06.12.2022, taking

into consideration the decision of the Constitutional Bench in

the case of Sarala Verma (supra), as also in the case of Pranay

Sethi (supra), has awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss

of parental consortium. The said enhancement and revision has

been done taking into consideration, rise in the cost of expenses

and cost of living that has arisen during the intervening period

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2023(1) ALD 107(SC)

from the date of decisions of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.

Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in its Constitutional

Bench decision had said that there shall be 10% hike on the

compensation awarded under general damages every three

years.

22. The contention raised by the learned counsel for

claimants/appellants deserves to be allowed to the above extent.

This Court is of the considered view that the claimants are also

entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/-

towards funeral expenses.

Conclusion:

23. In view of the above, the compensation amount is

recalculated as under:

Sl.No.     Head                                    Compensation awarded

1          Income                                  Rs.96,000/- per annum (Rs.8,000/-
                                                   per month)
2          Future prospects                        Rs.9,600/- (i.e., 10% of the income)

3          Deduction    towards     personal       Rs.26,400/- (i.e., one-fourth of
           expenses                                Rs.96,000/- + Rs.9,600/-)
4          Total Income                            Rs.79,200/- ( i.e., Rs.96,000/- +
                                                   Rs.9,600/- (-) Rs.26,400/-)


6          Loss of dependency                      Rs.8,71,200/- (i.e., Rs.79,200/- x
                                                   11)
7          Compensation     for   loss        of   Rs. 2,64,000/-
           consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 6)
8          Loss of estate                          Rs.   15,000/-

9          Funeral expenses                        Rs.   15,000/-

           Total compensation to be paid :         Rs. 11,65,200/-

24. The total compensation, payable to the claimants is raised

and enhanced from Rs.11,59,000/- to Rs.11,65,200/-. The said

compensation amount shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum

from the date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till

the date of the actual payment. The TSRTC is directed to ensure

that the entire amount of compensation is deposited within a

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order,

duly adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by TSRTC. The

ratio of apportionment of amounts among the

appellants/claimants and the permission to withdrawal shall be

the same in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.

25. In the result, MACMA No.617 of 2022 stands partly