The Telangana State Road ... vs Gaddam Anitha
2023 Latest Caselaw 358 Tel

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

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1298 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Road

Transport Corporation, questioning the order and decree,

dated 20.12.2018 made in M.V.O.P.No.39 of 2014 on the

file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (XII Additional

Chief Judge City Civil Court at Secunderabad (for short,

the Tribunal).

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

referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents on account of

death of the deceased, Gaddam Ashok, in the accident that

occurred on 11.03.2013 involving the RTC bearing No.AP

22Z 0082, owned by the respondent, being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner. According to the

claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased, along

with his family members, was traveling in auto vehicle

MGP, J Macma_1298_2019

No.AP 22Y 5075, the offending bus came in rash and

negligent manner and dashed the auto in which the

deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased

sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the

accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital,

Makthal and from there he was shifted to Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad and on 19.03.2013 he succumbed to

injuries while undergoing treatment. According to the

claimants, the deceased was aged about 38 years and

earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing Towel Designer at

Kudkyal Textiles, Sholapur. Therefore, they laid the claim

for Rs.10.00 lakhs against the respondents.

4. After considering the claim, counter and the evidence

brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P.

awarding compensation of Rs.13,89,600/- together with

interest at 9% per annum and costs to be paid by the

appellant. Challenging the same, the present appeal is

preferred by the appellant-RTC.

MGP, J Macma_1298_2019

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available

on record.

6. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for

the appellant-RTC is that the Tribunal erred in holding

that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further

contended that in the absence of any proof as to the

income of the deceased, the learned tribunal ought not to

have taken the income at Rs.10,000/- per month. It is

lastly contended that the rate of interest fixed by the

tribunal at 9% is too high and it should not be more than

6% per annum.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the claimants has sought to sustain the

impugned order contending that the Tribunal has awarded

just and reasonable compensation considering the evidence

brought on record. Therefore, the learned counsel sought

for dismissal of the appeal.

MGP, J Macma_1298_2019

8. Insofar as the manner in which the accident took

place is concerned, a perusal of the impugned judgment

shows that the tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to

whether the pleaded accident occurred resulted in death of

Gaddam Ashok due to any rash and negligent driving of

APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 22Z 0082 by its driver, and

having considered the evidence of P.Ws1 and 2 coupled

with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

act of the driver of the offending bus and has answered the

issue in favour of the claimants and against the

respondents. As seen from the record, P.W.2, eyewitness

to the accident, has categorically deposed that the Accident

took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus

by its driver. Though he was cross-examined, no contra

evidence was elicited to discredit his evidence.

Furthermore, the appellant-RTC did not take any steps to

examine the driver of the bus, who is the best person to

speak about the negligence on the part of the driver of the

auto, in which the deceased was traveling, if any.

MGP, J Macma_1298_2019

Therefore, in the absence of such evidence adduced by the

appellant-RTC, I see no reason to interfere with the finding

of the Tribunal in this regard.

9. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

though the claimants have asserted that the deceased was

Tower Designer at Kudkyal Textiles, Sholapur and earning

Rs.10,000/- per month, since no documentary or oral

evidence was adduced in this regard, the tribunal has took

the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month.

Considering the prevailing rate of minimum wages, this

Court is of the view that the fixation of monthly income of

the deceased at Rs.6,000/- does not warrant any

interference by this Court. Therefore, considering the facts

and circumstances of the case and considering the fact

that the deceased was 38 years at the time of accident, this

Court is of the view that the compensation of

Rs.13,89,600/- awarded by the tribunal is just and

reasonable and needs no interference. However, insofar as

the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, as per

MGP, J Macma_1298_2019

the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.

Rajbir Singh and others1, the rate of interest awarded by

the tribunal is reduced to 6% from 9% on the

compensation amount.

10. In the result, the appeal stands allowed in part.

While maintaining the quantum of compensation awarded

by the tribunal, the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal

on the compensation awarded is reduced from 9% to 6%

per annum. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

dismissed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 27.01.2023 mnv/gms

1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP, J Macma_1298_2019

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

M.A.C.M.A. No.1298 of 2019

DATE: 27.01.2023

mnv/gms