HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2815 of 2014
AND
CROSS OBJECTIONS No.71 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/The Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation questioning the order
and decree dated 06.06.2011 made in O.P.No.839 of 2009 on the
file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special
Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Cases-cum-Additional
District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal"). The
respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants also filed cross-objections seeking
enhancement of compensation amount.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred
to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.09.2009 the
deceased-Rama Mallaiah boarded an auto bearing No.
AP.24.X.6813 at Narketpally in order to go to Aitipamula village
and at about 7-15 p.m. when the auto reached Pamungundla
village, one APSRTC bus bearing No. AP.28.Z.1987 came in high 2
speed and dashed the auto, as a result, the deceased received
grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to the
petitioners, the deceased was aged 49 years, working as Driver in
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Cantonment
Depot, Secunderabad and was earning Rs.14,873/- per month.
Hence, the claimants being the legal representatives of the
deceased filed aforesaid O.P., claiming compensation of
Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.
4. The respondent-Corporation filed counter disputing the
manner in which the accident occurred and contended that the
amount claimed by the claimants is highly excessive and therefore,
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the deceased Kotha Rama Mallaiah S/o Kotha
Rosahaiah died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP.28.Z.1987?
3
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim
compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
6. During the trial on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were
examined and Exs.A1 to A7 got marked apart from Exs.X1 to X3.
No witnesses were examined and no document was marked on
behalf of the Respondent-Corporation.
7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,
the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and
awarded total compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- under various
heads, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by the
respondent.
8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on
record.
4
9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-
Corporation submits that the Tribunal did not consider the fact that
there was a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the
auto and has erroneously held that the accident occurred only due
to the negligence of the driver of the RTC bus. Coming to the
quantum of compensation, the learned Standing Counsel has
submitted that the tribunal erred in assessing the dependable
income of the deceased and therefore, the quantum of
compensation as was granted by the Tribunal is excessive.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants-cross objectors submits that after considering the oral
and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the
accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the driver of
the RTC bus. Further the tribunal ought to have granted
Rs.24,71,971/- by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.18,804/-
after deducting Rs.100/- towards professional tax and by adding
30% towards future prospects and deducting 1/3rd of it towards
personal expenses of the deceased.
5
11. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the
Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as to whether the deceased Kotha
Rama Mallaiah, S/o. Kotha Roshaiah died due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.
AP.28.Z.1987, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence
of P.W.2, eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the
documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1, first information report and
Ex.A5, charge sheet, categorically observed that the accident has
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
RTC bus and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver
of the auto and answered the issue in favour of the claimants and
against the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, I see no reason to
interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus.
12. Coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation,
admittedly, the deceased was driver in respondent organization and
Ex.X2 is the attested copy of salary certificate of the deceased.
PW-3 who is Senior Assistant Personnel of Cantonment Depot,
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Secunderabad 6
deposed that the deceased got Rs.18,904/- gross salary in the month
of August 2009. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-3
coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, the
tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.18,804/-, added 30% of it towards future prospects, as per the
decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, deducted 1/3rd of it towards
personal expenses of the deceased and loss of dependency was
calculated at Rs.25,41,760/-. However, the tribunal has not
deducted the income tax. Therefore, the loss of dependency is
recalculated as follows:
The income of the deceased after deducting professional tax
of Rs.100/- comes to Rs.18,804/-. After adding 30% of it towards
future prospects, it comes to Rs.24,445/- (18,804 + 5,641 =
24,445). From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are three in number.
After deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal and living
1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7
expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be
Rs.16,297/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs.1,95,564/-.
The income tax exemption during financial year 2010-11 is at
Rs.1,60,000/- and therefore, the taxable income per annum comes
to Rs.35,564/-, out of which 10% has to be deducted towards
income tax, which comes to Rs.3,556/-. Then the loss of
dependency of the deceased family per annum comes to
Rs.1,92,008/-. Since the deceased was 50 years by the time of the
accident, the appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the decision
reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra).
Adopting multiplier '13, the total loss of dependency would be
Rs.1,92,008/- x 13 = Rs.24,96,104/-. In addition thereto, the
claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads
as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Thus, in all the claimants are
entitled to Rs.25,73,104/-.
13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C.
submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as
compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now 8
awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is impermissible
under law.
14. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another3, the Apex
Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4 held as
under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
15. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to
above the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has
been claimed. Further the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial
piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a
paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to
extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
3 (2011) 10 SCC 756 4 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 9
16. Accordingly, while dismissing M.A.C.M.A.No.2815 of 2014
filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C., Cross Objections filed by the claimants
stands allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by
the Tribunal from Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.25,73,104/-. 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 respondent-
Corporation. 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. However,
the claimants shall pay the deficit court fee and on such payment of
court fee only, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same
without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 04.01.2023 pgp 10
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2815 of 2014 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS No.71 of 2019
DATE:04.01.2023.
