Chand Sultana, Hyderabad And 1 ... vs The Apsrtc, Hyderabad And 1 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 917 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 2822 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII

Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court): City Civil Courts,

Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No. 918 of 2013 dated 17.07.2015, the

present appeal is filed by the claimants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred

to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Appellants are the petitioners in the main petition.

According to the petitioners, on 07.11.2012 at about 9:50 a.m.

the deceased Md. Imtiyaz was proceeding towards Sainikpuri

side from Secunderabad side on his motorcycle bearing No.

AP.09.BY.3511 slowly on the extreme left side of the road and

when he reached between Military Hospital backside gate and

NSG Office, one A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No. AP.10.Z.8032 being

driven by its driver came from his backside with high speed in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the

deceased, due to which the deceased Md. Imtiyaz fell down on

the road and sustained grievous injuries on head and all over the

body and died on the spot and the motor cycle of the deceased

was completely damaged. According to the petitioners, the

deceased was aged 23 years, at the time the accident and was a

student pursuing M.Sc. II year from Bhavan's Vivekananda

College of Science, Humanities and commerce, Sainikpuri,

Secunderabad an affiliated college of Osmania University,

Hyderabad and was taking tuition classes to Bi.P.C students and

the students preparing for different competitive examinations.

Thus, the deceased thereby used to earn a sum of Rs.15,000/-

per month and used to contribute the same to his family.

Further, by the date of his accident, deceased was working as a

Process Associate with ISPACE GLOBAL SERVICES Pvt. Ltd.,

and was earning Rs. 9,000/-per month. Thus the petitioners are

claiming compensation under various heads against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Corporation represented by its Managing Director and Depot

manager, jointly and severally.

4. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed counter disputing the manner

in which the accident occurred, age, avocation and income of the

deceased. It is further contended that the accident occurred due

to the negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore,

prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the

following issues:

1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased Md. Imtiyaz Ali, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Motor Vehicle (APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 8032)by its driver?

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

3) To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners,

PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-19. On

behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, no witnesses were examined

and no document was marked.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2-

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Perused the

material available on record.

8. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount

of Rs.12,05,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-

claimants against the respondents-Corporation, jointly and

severally, along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from

the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against the

claim of Rs.25 lakhs.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has

submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3, and Exs.A.1 to A.19, established the fact that the

death of the deceased-Md.Imtiyaz Ali was caused in a motor

accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.

10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondents-Corporation sought to sustain the impugned award

of the Tribunal contending that considering the learned Tribunal

has awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same

needs no interference by this Court.

11. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner

of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e., RTC

bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 8032. However, the Tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the

documentary evidence available on record, rightly held that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle.

12. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned,

according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 23 years, at

the time the accident and was a student pursuing M.Sc. II year

from Bhavan's Vivekananda College of Science, Humanities and

commerce, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad an affiliated college of

Osmania University, Hyderabad and was taking tuition classes

to Bi.P.C students and the students preparing for different

competitive examinations. Thus, the deceased thereby used to

earn a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. In support of their case,

PW-3 who is senior college colleague of the deceased was

examined and he deposed that the deceased Md.Imtiyaz Ali

completed his M.Sc. in Organic Chemistry from Sri Krishna

Devaraya University, Ananthapur in April 2008 and he is

working For Eli Lilly Company (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon,

Haryana since more than three years. Ex.X1 to X3 are filed by

him. He joined in the company vide offer cum appointment

letter dated 1.5.2010 and he is drawing gross salary of

Rs.48,865/- per month. However, as there is no document was

filed to prove his income, the Tribunal has rightly taken the

income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month but did not

consider the future prospectus. In light of the principles laid

down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are also

entitled to the future prospects and since the deceased was aged

about 23 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income is

added towards future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.14,000/-

2017 ACJ 2700

(Rs.10,000 + 4,000 = 14,000/-). Since the deceased was a

bachelor, 50% of his income is to be deducted towards his

personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the

deceased would be Rs.7,000/- per month. Since the deceased

was aged about 23 years at the time of accident, the appropriate

multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 would be "18". Then

the loss of dependency would be Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18

=Rs.15,12,000/-. In addition thereto, under the conventional

heads, the claimants are granted Rs.33,000/- as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further the

petitioners who are parents of the deceased are entitled for

Rs.40,000/- each as filial consortium as per Magma General

Insurance Company Limited v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram3.

Thus, in all, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.16,25,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal.

13. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle i.e., RTC bus. Therefore, the Tribunal

rightly held that the respondents-Corporation are jointly and

severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

(2018) 18 SCC 130

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.12,05,000/- to Rs.16,25,000/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the

date of realization, to be payable by the respondents jointly and

severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned

among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the

Tribunal. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such

deposit of compensation amount by the respondents, the

claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing

any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 23.02.2023.

pgp