HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.607 of 2019
AND
CROSS OBJECTIONS NO.13 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT:
The M.A.C.M.A.No.607 of 2019 filed by the Andhra
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Now Telangana State
Road Transport Corporation) challenging the quantum of
compensation and Cross Objections No.13 of 2020 filed by the
claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, are directed
against the very same award and decree, dated 08.10.2018 made in
O.P.No.56 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge,
Godavarikhani (for short "the Tribunal") and being disposed of by
this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be
referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. The facts, in issue, are as under:
The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 (1)(c) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents 1 and 2,
2
claiming compensation of Rs.19,86,000/- for the death of Siddam
Ramulu in the accident. According to the petitioners, on
03.12.2013 while the deceased was proceeding towards his village
on his TVS XL moped bearing No. AP 15 BC 2611, driver of
APSRTC bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed
and dashed his bike from his back side, due to which, the deceased
fell down and sustained head injury and other multiple fractures.
Immediately he was taken to a Hospital at Peddapalli, and on the
advise of Doctors, he was shifted to Appollo Reach Hospital at
Karimnagar, where the Doctors refused to admit him in their
hospital and in view of his serious condition, he was shifted to
Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad in Ambulance with
the help of ventilator. The deceased has undergone various
operations, and he was in the hospital from 3.12.2013 to 22.1.2014
and the petitioners spent huge amount for his treatment, but he
succumbed to the injuries on 21.1.2014. According to the
petitioners, the deceased was retired from service as Trammer in
10-Incline Mine, in July, 2011 and he was receiving Rs.6,530/- per
month towards pension and further he used to do vegetable 3
business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month on it. Therefore, the
petitioners are seeking compensation of Rs.19,86,000/- against the
respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are driver and owner of the offending
vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the
petition and further contended that on 3.12.2013 while he was
discharging his duties suddenly two persons made an attempt to
cross the road from left to right side after consuming liquor in a
Dhaba which was on the left side of the road. Having noticed
them, respondent No.1 applied sudden brakes, but the rider of the
bike could not control the vehicle and dashed the left side bumper
of the bus, fell on the road and received injuries. Therefore, he
prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in
which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the
deceased. It is further contended that the compensation claimed is
excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the motor vehicle accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle (Respondent No.1) owned by respondent No.2?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, to what amount and if so, from whom?
3. To what relief?
7. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and
Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. On
behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined and no documents
were marked.
8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus and awarded
the total compensation of Rs.9,81,000/- with costs and interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till the entire amount is
realized against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
9. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material
available on record.
5
10. The main contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent No.2-Corporation is that the TVS XL
motorcycle bearing No. AP.15.BC.2611 was driven by the
deceased in rash and negligent manner and dashed the left side
bumper of the bus and that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is excessive and prays to set aside the Order passed by the
Tribunal.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
although the claimants established the fact that the death of the
deceased-Siddam Ramulu was caused in a motor accident, the
Tribunal awarded meager amount.
12. With regard to the manner of accident, the learned counsel
for the respondent No.2-Corporation submitted that after
consuming liquor the TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.
AP.15.BC.2611 was driven by the deceased in rash and negligent
manner and dashed the left side bumper of the bus. However, there
is no mention in the postmortem examination report about the
presence of alcohol in the dead body of the deceased and the police
after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of 6
the offending RTC bus. Therefore, considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, the tribunal rightly held that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending RTC bus.
13. Here, it is pertinent to state that petitioners are the wife and
daughter of the deceased respectively. The tribunal refused to
grant compensation to the petitioner No.2 alleging that she cannot
be treated as dependent of the deceased. However, a married
daughter of the deceased though not dependant on the deceased is
also entitled to get compensation, as she falls under the category of
legal representative under Section166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Apex Court in Manjuri Bera vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited in Appeal (Civil) No.1702 of 2007 dated
30.03.2007, held that a married daughter is also entitled to
compensation being the legal representative and no dependency
cannot be a ground to deny her compensation.
14. With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to
the petitioners, the deceased was retired from service as Trammer
in 10-Incline Mine, in July, 2011 and he was receiving Rs.6,530/- 7
per month towards pension and further he used to do vegetable
business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. As there is no
evidence to believe that the deceased was receiving some pension,
the tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per
month, which is very less. However, considering the avocation of
the deceased, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.5,000/-
per month. Further, 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 60 years at the
time of accident, 10% of the income is added towards future
prospects. Then it comes to Rs.5,500/- (5,000 + 500 = 5,500).
Since the deceased left as many as two persons as the dependants,
1/3rd of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and
living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be
Rs.3,667/- (5,500 - 1833 = 3667/-) per month. Since the deceased
was aged about 60 years at the time of accident, the appropriate
multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla
1 2017 ACJ 2700 8
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 would be "19". Then the
loss of dependency would be Rs.3,667/- x 12 x 9 =Rs.3,96,036/-.
In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are
granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra). Further considering Ex.A7 final bill issued
by Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad, the tribunal
rightly awarded an amount of Rs.6,40,000/-, which is not
disturbed. Thus, in all, the compensation is enhanced to
Rs.11,13,036/-.
15. Accordingly, while dismissing M.A.C.M.A.No.607 of 2019
filed by the respondent No.2-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation, Cross Objections filed by the claimants stands
allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.9,81,000/- to Rs.11,13,036/-. Further, the
enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization, payable by respondent
Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Out of the said compensation,
petitioner No.2 is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- and the remaining
2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 9
amount is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1. Time to
deposit the compensation is one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J
04.01.2023 pgp
