Telangana High Court

T. Bharathi vs The A.P.S.R.T.C on 9 February, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

                                 1                                           RRN,J
                                                           COMMON JUDGMENT IN
                                              MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017




THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                      M.A.C.M.A No.2711 OF 2016

                                  &

                      M.A.C.M.A No.2141 OF 2017

COMMON JUDGMENT:

            Both these Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals

are being disposed of by way of this common judgment as both these

appeals are directed against the award dt.30.06.2016 in M.V.O.P

No.1595 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to

as 'the Tribunal').

2.          In M.A.C.M.A. No.2711 of 2016 the Appellants/petitioners

had challenged the award dt.30.06.2016 in M.V.O.P No.1595 of 2012

with regard to the quantum of compensation and prayed to enhance

the same, and in M.A.C.M.A No.2141 of 2017, the Respondent/RTC

had challenged the award dt.30.06.2016 in M.V.O.P No.1595 of 2012

by contending that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of

Rs.3,70,000/- towards the compensation along with costs and interest

@ 9% per annum as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- and the

Tribunal failed to frame an issue as to the contributory negligence,

leading to the accident as the deceased was crossing the road 2 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017

suddenly and there is negligence on the part of the deceased, and the

Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per

month instead of taking as Rs.3,000/- per month; and the Tribunal

erred in awarding medical expenses without examining the authorized

person and prayed to set-aside the same.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in M.A.C.M.A

No.2711 of 2016 are discussed hereunder and the parties are

hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.2011 at about

22.30 hours, while the deceased Sukhananda Rao was trying to cross

the road, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-6771 driven in a rash and

negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the deceased, as a result,

the deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately,

he was shifted to Sunshine Hospital. Later, he was shifted to NIMS

Hospital. In all, the petitioners spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-

towards medical treatment. The deceased died on 12.07.2012 at

13.00 hours while undergoing treatment.

4.1 Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy,

aged about 62 years and was doing private service and used to earn

Rs.10,000/- per month and contribute to his family. The accident was 3 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing

No.AP-11Z-6771.

5. Respondents filed counter denying the averments of the

petition and contended that the accident was due to the negligent act

of the deceased by crossing the busy road without observing the

vehicular traffic on the road and causing inconvenience and confusion

to the other road-passers, and the driver of the RTC bus is not

responsible for the accident.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following

issues:

1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased, T. Sukhananda Rao, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-11Z-6771) by its driver?

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

3) To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and

Exhibits Ex.A1 to A9 were marked. No evidence either oral or

documentary was adduced by the respondents. Basing on the

material available, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,70,000/-.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

                                            4                                              RRN,J
                                                                        COMMON JUDGMENT IN
                                                           MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017


9.                 Learned    counsel    appearing   for      the     petitioners        had

contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre amount as

compensation. He further contended that the multiplier to be taken

as per the decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation1 is '7' and further prayed to award the amounts under

conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Pranay Sethi2. Thus, prayed to allow the appeal. On the other

hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had

contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that there was

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he was crossing

the busy road without caution. He further contended that the salary

of the deceased cannot be considered to be Rs.10,000/- per month as

the author of such salary certificate was not examined and prayed to

dismiss the appeal. However, a careful perusal of the observations of

the Tribunal would reveal that the respondents failed to adduce any

evidence in proof of their contentions and the Tribunal was justified in

holding that the driver of the bus of the respondents was liable for the

accident.

10. A perusal of the impugned award goes to show that the

Tribunal erred in not awarding just compensation to the petitioners

despite the petitioners adduced sufficient evidence. The Tribunal fixed

2009 ACJ 1298

2017 (16) SCC 680 5 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017

the salary of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month in spite of the

petitioners adducing evidence, oral and documentary, claiming that

the salary of the deceased at the time of the incident was Rs.10,000/-

and the respondents could not disprove the same as no evidence was

adduced. As such, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice

would be met if the salary of the deceased is fixed @ Rs.7,000/- p.m.

The loss of dependency would thus tune to:

             Monthly income                           Rs.7,000/-
              Yearly income                          Rs.84,000/-

       Deduction towards personal                    Rs.58,000/-
               expenses
                                           (Rs.84,000/- (-) Rs.28,000/- (1/3
                                           to be deducted as dependants are
                                                     2 in number)


                   (supra)
           Loss of dependency                       Rs.4,06,000/-
                                                   (Rs.58,000/- x 7)

11. This Court is further inclined to enhance the awarded

amount in certain heads. The Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate,

funeral expenses and loss of consortium respectively. They are

enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.40,000/- with 10%

thereof, totalling to Rs.70,000/- + 10% = Rs.77,000/- as per Pranay 6 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017

Sethi (supra). The compensation amount awarded under the rest of

the heads is justified, hence need not be interfered with.

12. Hence, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to the following

compensation:

Amount awarded by the Tribunal        Enhancement made by this
            Rs.                               Court
                                               Rs.
Transportation     10,000/-                            10,000/-

Medical bills      78,000/-                                 78,000/-

Medical            50,000/-                                 50,000/-
expenditure
Damages to         2,000/-                                    2,000/-
clothing
Funeral            10,000/-                                 16,500/-
expenses
Loss of estate     10,000/-                                 16,500/-

Loss of            30,000/-                                 44,000/-
consortium
Loss of            1,80,000/-                            4,06,000/-
dependency
Total              3,70,000/-                            6,23,000/-

13. Though the claimed amount is Rs.5,00,000/-, invoking the

principle of just compensation, and in view of the settled law, this

Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed

amount. Thus, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to the enhanced

compensation of Rs.6,23,000/- as against the awarded amount of

Rs.3,70,000/-.

                                    7                                           RRN,J
                                                             COMMON JUDGMENT IN
                                                MACMA No.2711 of 2016 & 2141 OF 2017

14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A No. 2711 of 2016 is allowed,

enhancing the compensation amount of Rs.3,70,000/-to

Rs.6,23,000/-(Rupees Six Lakh and Twenty Three Thousand only).

The enhanced amount shall carry interest @7.5 % from the date of

petition till the date of realization. The petitioners are directed to pay

the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount within (01) month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Similarly, the

respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount, after

deducting the amount if any already deposited, within (02) months

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. There

shall be no order as to costs.

M.A.C.M.A NO. 2141 OF 2017