Telangana High Court

Pebbeti Krishnamma 2 Others vs The Managing Director Another on 7 February, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

                               1                                       RRN,J
                                                        MACMA No.2895 of 2014

          *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


                    + M.A.C.M.A. No. 2895 OF 2014


% 07-02-2023




# Pebbeti Krishnamma and others
                                                            ....Appellants
Vs.

$ The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad
  and another
                                                     .... Respondents


!Counsel for the petitioner        : C. Mohan Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents        : Thoom Srinivas


<Gist :


>Head Note:


? Cases referred:

   1. (2011) 13 SCC 236
   2. 2017(16) SCC 680
   3. MANU/SC/0480/2013
                                 2                                      RRN,J
                                                        MACMA No.2895 of 2014




         IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                          HYDERABAD
                             ****
                    M.A.C.M.A. No. 2895 OF 2014
Between:

Pebbeti Krishnamma and others
                                                             ....Appellants
Vs.

The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad
and another

                                                        ... Respondents


ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 07.02.2023


      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


1.    Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
      may be allowed to see the Judgments?           : Yes
2.    Whether the copies of judgment may be
      Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?              : Yes
3.    Whether His Lordship wishes to
      see the fair copy of the Judgment?             : Yes



                                    _____________________________________
                                    NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
                                  3                                  RRN,J
                                                     MACMA No.2895 of 2014




     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                       M.A.C.M.A. NO. 2895 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment

and decree dt.15.03.2013 in M.V.O.P No. 2886 of 2011 on the file of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil

Courts, Hyderabad. This is a case of death.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 21.08.2011, the deceased Pebbeti Srinu while going to

Hyderabad was proceeding on foot to Divis Laboratories, which is

located on the southern side of National Highway No.9 and abutting

to it, there was Ankireddydugem Bus Stop of Choutuppal Mandal.

On either side of the road, there were bushes and trees. Further, the

road was being widened on both sides and the same was not

observed by the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP39Z662 and the

said bus driver dashed the deceased from the rear side and as such

he fell down and the said bus was coming from Visakhapatnam and

being driven by a single driver. He drove the bus for about 1000kms

from Visakhapatnam and was dousing hence, the driver could not

see the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries to the

head, hands and leg and succumbed to the same. On a report, the 4 RRN,J MACMA No.2895 of 2014

Station House Officer, PS Choutuppal registered a case in Cr.No.189

of 2011 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the bus as

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

the said APSRTC bus. The deceased P. Srinu was aged 35 years and

he used to work as a labourer and earned Rs.7,000/- p.m. He was

contributing his income for the maintenance of the family. The

claimants filed MVOP before the Tribunal claiming compensation of

Rs.7,00,000/-.

3. After hearing both sides and basing on the available evidence

on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,65,000/- as compensation

under several heads. Against the above award, the present appeal is

filed and also enhancement petition is filed by the appellants vide IA

No. 2 of 2014 seeking enhancement of compensation amount from

Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the awarded

amount was meagre and the Tribunal ought to have awarded more

amount as claimed based on evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and also

Exhibits marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and as per the Hon'ble Apex Court's

judgment in Nagappa case reported in 2003 (2) SCC 2734 and

Rajesh case reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 SC, subject to payment of

court fee on the additional amount. He further contended that the 5 RRN,J MACMA No.2895 of 2014

Court below erred in accepting the income of the deceased at

Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.7,000/- p.m despite the appellants got

examined PW-2 who is the employer contractor. Hence, prayed to

allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

argued that there is no proof of income of the deceased and as per

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa1, the

Court below rightly fixed the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-

p.m. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. It is observed from the evidence of PW-2 who is the eye-

witness-cum-Labour Contractor, that he categorically deposed that

the deceased used to work under him as a labourer in Divis

Laboratories Limited and that he was being paid an amount of

Rs.7,000/- p.m. The cross-examination of PW-2 did not disprove his

evidence. The Court below fixed the salary of the deceased at

Rs.5,000/- p.m but has not considered adding future prospects. As

such the loss of dependency was fixed to Rs.6,40,000/-; transport

expenses Rs.5,000/-; loss of estate Rs.5,000/-; loss of consortium

Rs.10,000/-; funeral expenses Rs.5,000/-, in all, Rs. 6,65,000/- was

awarded as compensation.





( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236
                                          6                                        RRN,J
                                                                   MACMA No.2895 of 2014

8. Given the evidence on record, circumstances and the lapse in

time, this Court is inclined to modify the salary of the deceased from

Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,500/-. Addition of future prospects of 40% as is

apt as the deceased was aged 45 years. Rs.6,500/- + Rs.2,600/- i.e

40% = Rs.9,100/- p.m and the same annually would come to

Rs.9,100/- x 12= Rs. 1,09,200. The one-third amount is to be

deducted towards contribution and the apt multiplier is 16. Hence,

Rs.1,09,200 x 2/3 x 16 = 11,64,800/- is the loss of dependency,

which the appellants are entitled to. Further, the compensation

awarded for loss of estate Rs.5,000/-; loss of consortium Rs.10,000/-

and funeral expenses Rs.5,000/- are enhanced to Rs.15,000/-;

Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively along with an addition of

10% as per Pranay Sethi2. In all, Rs.40,000/-+ Rs.15000/- +

Rs.15000/- + 10% = Rs.77,000/-. The amount of Rs.5,000/- towards

transport expenses is justified.

9. As such, the appellants are entitled to compensation as under:

                            Head                        Amount

                  Loss of dependency                Rs. 11,64,800/-

             Loss of Spousal Consortium      Rs.44,000/-(Rs.40,000/- + 10%)

                        Loss of Estate       Rs.16,500 (Rs.15,000/- + 10%)

                   Funeral expenses          Rs.16,500 (Rs.15,000/- + 10%)

                    Travel expenses                   Rs.5,000/-





    2017 (16) SCC 680
                                7                                     RRN,J
                                                      MACMA No.2895 of 2014

                   Total                 Rs. 12,46,800/-

10. The appellants, with regard to the aspect of granting excess

compensation than that of claimed, relied upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh3 wherein it was

held as follows:

13. Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the Application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At Paragraph 10 of Nagappa's case (supra), it was held as follows:

10. Thereafter, Section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to "make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just". Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be 'just'. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.

14. The principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and Anr. MANU/SC/0899/2009 : AIR 2009 SC 1219 and in Ningamma and Anr. v. United Indian Insurance Co. Limited MANU/SC/0802/2009 : (2009) 13 SCC 710.

15. Underlying principle discussed in the above decisions is with regard to the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation and it has now become settled law that the Court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities, in such matters. Attempt of the Court should be to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured/the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim.

MANU/SC/0480/2013

8 RRN,J MACMA No.2895 of 2014

Therefore, there is no irregularity in awarding the enhanced

compensation amount as against the claimed amount. However, the

appellants are bound to deposit the deficit court fee upon the

enhanced amount.

11. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount from Rs.6,65,000/- to Rs.12,46,800/-

(Rupees Lakh Forty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Only). The

difference of the enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest

at the rate of 7.5%. The manner in which the awarded amount shall

be dealt with by the appellants is as the same as directed by the