Smt.Gunti Dhanamma Alias M ... vs A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyd Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 476 Tel

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

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.2491 of 2017
JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in

the judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2017 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.3101 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellant/claimant

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the

compensation.

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

referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

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

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one G.Sreenu,

husband of claimant (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who

died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.11.2014.

According to the claimant, on the fateful day, the deceased was

proceeding towards Nayakangudem on motorcycle bearing No.AP 20

AS 8410 on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached

near the Crusher Mill in the outskirts of Kusumanchi village, at

about 05.00 p.m, the crime vehicle i.e., RTC Bus bearing No. TS 04

MGP, J Macma_2491_2017

Z 0157, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner

with high speed on wrong side and dashed the motorcycle, as a

result of which, the deceased fell down, sustained multiple injuries.

Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital where he

succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in Gandhi

Hospital. According to the claimant, the deceased was aged 40

years, working as Centring mastery and earning Rs.15,000/- per

month. Therefore, they filed the claim petition against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 claiming compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs

towards compensation under different heads.

4. Before the tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2, filed counter

denying the manner in which the accident took place, including the

age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the

quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed

to dismiss the petition.

5. Considering claim, counter filed and the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal held that

the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the RTC bus by

its driver and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.6,03,000/- with

interest at 9% per annum payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly

and severally. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the

claimants filed the present appeal.

MGP, J Macma_2491_2017

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant is that the claimant has established that the deceased

was earning Rs.15,000/- per month out of his employment which

has been substantiated with the oral evidence of P.W.2, but the

Tribunal has erroneously took the income of the deceased at

Rs.4,000/- per month and awarded meager amount.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent No.2, Insurance company, has contended that except

the oral evidence of P.W.2, no other evidence is adduced to establish

the said employment and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the deceased Rs.4,000/- per month and awarded

reasonable compensation which needs no interference by this

Court.

10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place has become final as the same is not

challenged by either of the respondents.

11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

claimant in order to prove the income of deceased, no documentary

evidence is produced. However, considering the avocation of the

petitioner and the accident is of the year 2014, this Court is

MGP, J Macma_2491_2017

inclined to fix the income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month

as he is a skilled person. Considering the fact that the age of the

deceased at the time of accident was below 40 years, the claimant is

entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects to the

established income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others1. Therefore, the future monthly income of the deceased

comes to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-). From this, 1/2 is to

be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following

the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2

since there is only one dependent, After deducting 1/2 therefrom

towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of

income by the deceased to the family comes to Rs.4,200/- per

month. Since the age of the deceased was 40 years as held by the

Tribunal, the appropriate multiplier is '15' as per the guidelines laid

down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Adopting

multiplier '15', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,56,000/-

(Rs.11,200/- x 12 x 15). That apart, the claimant is entitled to

Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the

Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_2491_2017

14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.6,03,000/- to

Rs.8,33,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The

enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by

the Tribunal. Time to deposit the entire compensation is one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 31.01.2023 gms

MGP, J Macma_2491_2017

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.2491 of 2017

DATE: 31-01-2023

gms