R Dalamma, Adilabad Dist 2 Others vs The Apsrtc, Rep By Its M.D., ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 859 Tel

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

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.1131 of 2017

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the claimants, questioning the award

and decree dated 25.01.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.1468 of 2014 on the file of

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad.

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

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one R.Bhaskara Rao,

son of claimant Nos.1&2, brother of claimant No.3 (hereinafter referred

to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 16.04.2014. According to the claimants, on the fateful

day, while the deceased was getting down from the APSRTC bus

bearing No.AP 11Z 7379 at S.R.Nagar Bus stop, the driver of the said

bus, suddenly drove the bus without noticing the deceased and due to

the sudden motion of bus at high speed, the deceased fell down on the

road and the bus wheels ran over the deceased and he sustained

injuries all over the body and died on spot. According to the claimants,

the deceased was aged 22 years, working as driver and earning

Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, they filed the claim petition against

the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards

compensation under different heads.

MGP, J MACMA.No.1131 of 2017

3. Before the tribunal, the respondent Nos.1 and 2, filed counter

denying the manner in which the accident took place, including the

age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the

quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to

dismiss the petition.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following

issues:

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased, R. Bhaskara Rao, due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 7379, by its driver?

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

3. To what relief?

5. In order to prove their case, PWs.1 & 2 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses

were examined and no documents were marked.

6. Considering the claim, counter filed and the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the

accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus by

its driver and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.5,42,000/- with

interest at 9% per annum payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly

and severally. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the

claimants filed the present appeal.

MGP, J MACMA.No.1131 of 2017

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants is that the claimants have established that the deceased

was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as driver but the

Tribunal has erroneously took the income of the deceased as

Rs.4,000/- per month, which is a meager amount.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent Nos.1 & 2, has contended that the learned Tribunal has

awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same needs no

interference by this Court.

10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which

the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged

by either of the respondents.

11. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

according to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 22 years and

used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by working as driver. But no

evidence is produced, either oral or documentary, to prove his income

or avocation. However, considering the age of the deceased and as the

accident is of the year 2014, this Court is inclined to fix the income of

the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged

about 22 years, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards

future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

MGP, J MACMA.No.1131 of 2017

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others1. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-). Since the deceased was

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

the deceased therefrom, the net monthly contribution of the deceased

to the family comes to Rs.4,200/-(Rs.8,400 - Rs.4,200 = Rs.4,200).

As the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the decision reported in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Adopting multiplier 18, his

total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.4,200/- x 12 x 18

= Rs.9,07,200). The claimants are also entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards

loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's case

(supra). Moreover, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma

General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram

and others3, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards

filial consortium. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to

Rs.10,20,000/- towards just compensation. Insofar as the interest is

concerned, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till

realization.

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

MGP, J MACMA.No.1131 of 2017

12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount

awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,42,000/- to

Rs.10,20,200/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5%

p.a. from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization. The

enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by

the Tribunal. Time to deposit the entire compensation is two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claimant shall

pay the deficit court fee. On such deposit of Court fee, the major

claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amounts

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

21.02.2023 gms

MGP, J MACMA.No.1131 of 2017

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

M.A.C.M.A. No.1131 of 2017

21.02.2023

gms