Apsrtc, Hyderabad 1 Other vs Smt M Padma, R.R.Dist 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 353 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

          M.A.C.M.A.Nos.454 of 2017 and 332 of 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.454 of 2017 filed by the Andhra

Pradesh     State    Road       Trasnport   Corporation   (presently,

Telangana     State       Road      Transport    Corporation)    and

M.A.C.M.A.No.332 of 2018 filed by the claimants assailing the

quantum of compensation, are directed against the very same

order and decree, dated 17.11.2015 made in M.V.O.P.No.1499

of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for

short "the Tribunal").


2.    For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.


3.    Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

against     the     respondents       claiming   compensation      of

Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of M.Narayana (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased"), in the motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 26.02.2013. According to them, on the fateful day,

while the deceased was proceeding from Sarvarkar Nagar to IDA

Nacharam on cycle for selling tea and when he reached in front

of Suri Engineering Private Company, the offending vehicle i.e., MGP, J 2 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018

Bus bearing No. AP 11Z 105, being driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner at high speed, came from back side and

dashed the cycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down

and the left side wheel of the bus ran over the deceased,

resulting into the instantaneous death of the deceased.

According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 35 years,

doing tea business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

Therefore, they laid the claim petition against the RTC, who is

the owner of the offending vehicle, seeking compensation of

Rs.15.00 lakhs.

4. Before the Tribunal, the RTC, contested the claim by filing

counter inter alia contention that the claim was made by the

claimants is excessive and disputing the manner of the

accident.

5. Considering the claim, counter filed by the RTC, and on

evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the

learned Tribunal has allowed the M.V.O.P. awarding total

compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs with 9% interest per annum to

be paid by the respondents-RTC jointly and severally.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the RTC (appellants in

MACMA No.454 of 2017) has vehemently argued that the

Tribunal did not consider the evidence brought on record in

proper perspective and erroneously held that the accident had MGP, J 3 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018

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

the bus. In fact, the accident took place due to the contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased, who was riding the cycle

without following the traffic rules and observing the moving

vehicles on the road and that he suddenly came on the middle

of the road and touched the body of the bus. Therefore, the

Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory negligence on

the part of the deceased also. As regards the quantum of

compensation, it is contended that though the claimants have

asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month

by selling tea, in the absence of any proof in that regard, the

Tribunal ought to have restricted the income to Rs.5,000/- per

month. It is lastly contended that the rate of interest awarded

by the Tribunal is on higher side and it should be restricted to

6% per annum.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants

(appellants in MACMA No. 332 of 2018) has contended that

since the claimants have asserted that the deceased was doing

tea business, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income

at Rs.10,000/-. However, it is contended that the Tribunal has

erred in not awarding future prospects to the income of the

deceased. It is further contended that the Tribunal has awarded

only Rs.55,000/- under the conventional heads, but it should

be Rs.77,000/-. It is lastly contended that the claimant Nos. 2 MGP, J 4 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018

& 3 being the minor children of the deceased, are entitled to

parental consortium.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the

learned Standing Counsel for the RTC. Perused the material

available on record.

9. It is the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel

for the appellant-RTC that the accident occurred due to the

contributory negligence even on the part of the deceased as the

deceased came on the road suddenly riding his cycle without

observing the moving traffic and touched the bus and therefore,

the Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory negligence.

As seen from the record, Ex.A.1, FIR, was registered against the

driver of the crime vehicle. Further, after due investigation into

the crime, police laid the charge sheet, Ex.A.4 against the driver

of the offending vehicle stating that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the

driver was charged for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC.

That apart, P.W.2, the eyewitness to the accident, clearly stated

that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent

driving of the bus by its driver. However, the RTC did not take

any steps to summon the driver of the offending bus to prove

that there was contributory negligence on the part of the

deceased, who is the best person to speak in this regard.

Further, no contra evidence was elicited in the cross-

MGP, J 5 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018

examination of P.W. 2, eyewitness to the accident. Therefore,

considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 & A.4, FIR and

charge sheet, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident

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

by its driver, which needs no interference by this Court.

10. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is the case of

the claimants that the deceased was doing tea vendor and used

to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. However, in that regard no oral

or documentary evidence was adduced by the claimants. Such

being the case, the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/-

is on higher side in the opinion of this Court. Considering the

avocation of the deceased, this Court is inclined to fix the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. That apart, as

per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1,

since the deceased was aged about 35 years, the claimants are

entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects.

Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-). Since there are four

defendants, after deducting 1/4th towards personal and living

expenses of the deceased, the net monthly income that was

being contributed to the family of the deceased comes to

Rs.8,400/- per month. As the age of the deceased was 35 years

2017 ACJ 2700 MGP, J 6 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018

at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '16' as

per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation2. Adopting multiplier 16, his total loss of earnings

comes to Rs.16,12,800/- (Rs.8,400/- x 12 x 16 =

Rs.16,12,800/-). That apart, the claimants are also entitled to

Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's

case (supra). In addition thereto, the claimant Nos.2 and 3,

being the minor children of the deceased, are entitled to

Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium. Thus, in all the

claimants are entitled to Rs.17,69,800/- towards just

compensation. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal

is concerned, the rate of interest is hereby reduced to 6% per

annum from 9% on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

from the date of petition till realization.

11. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No. 332 of 2018 is allowed

enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.15,00,000/- to Rs.17,69,800/- which shall carry interest at

6% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of

realization payable by the RTC. The MACMA No. 454 of 2017

stands partly allowed to the extent of reducing the rate of

interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. Time to deposit

the amount is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) MGP, J 7 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018

withdraw the amount without depositing any security. However,

the claimants shall pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced

compensation. It is made clear that since the claimant No.4 is

no more, her share of compensation shall be distributed among

the claimant Nos.1 to 3 in the ratio as decided by the Tribunal.

No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 27.01.2023 gms MGP, J 8 Macma_454_2017 and 332_2018

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.454 of 2017 and 332 of 2018

27.01.2023

gms