Jareema Begum 2 Others vs The Tsrtc 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1007 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.1744 of 2017

JUDGMENT :

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional

District Judge, Nizamabad in M.V.O.P. No.1044 of 2008, dated

7.1.2016, the present appeal is filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5, who

are the first wife and children of the deceased, seeking enhancement of

compensation granted by the Tribunal.

2. According to the petitioners, on 4.12.2007 while the deceased

Abdul Hameed @ Ameeruddin was going on his scooter bearing No.

AP 25 AD 7641 in order to attend Metpally Court and at about 12-30

p.m. when he reached near Kukunoor X road on National Highway

No.16, APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 881 belongs to Karimnagar

Depot being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed the deceased, due to which he sustained crush injuries and

died on the spot. Police, Velpoor registered a case in crime No.75 of

2007 against the bus driver under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 35 years, doing

vegetable business and milk vendor, other petty seasonal business etc.,

MGP, J MACMA.No.1744 of 2017

and getting income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus the petitioners

claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under various heads against the

respondent No.1 and 2-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Corporation and respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are the first wife and

children of the deceased.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation filed counter disputing the

manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is

further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is

excessive and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

4. In order to prove their case, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 3

were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

5. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total

compensation of Rs.8,96,200/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of

realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2-Corporation.

MGP, J MACMA.No.1744 of 2017

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation. Perused the

material available on record.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is

that though it is an admitted fact that the petitioner No.1 is the second

wife and respondent No.3 is the first wife of the deceased, the tribunal

after taking into consideration of all the aspects has awarded an amount

of Rs.8,96,200/-. However, coming to the apportionment, the tribunal

apportioned an amount of Rs.2,71,200/- to the petitioner No.1 and

Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.3, which is contrary to law.

Therefore, he prays to award the compensation to both the wives of the

deceased equally.

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

respondents-Corporation submitted that the tribunal after considering

all the aspects has rightly apportioned the amount and the same needs

no interference by this Court.

9. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of

accident. However, the tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1

and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record

MGP, J MACMA.No.1744 of 2017

rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending RTC bus. Therefore, I see no

reason to interfere with the finding of the tribunal in this aspect.

10. Coming to the compensation, the tribunal after appreciating the

evidence available on record, rightly taken the income of the deceased

at Rs.4,500/-, deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses and by

applying multiplier '16' awarded an amount of Rs.6,91,200/- towards

loss of dependency. The tribunal further awarded an amount of

Rs.50,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral

expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.1,20,000/-

towards loss of love and affection and in all, the petitioners and

respondent Nos.3 to 5 granted compensation of Rs.8,96,200/-, which is

just and reasonable. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with

the findings of the tribunal on this aspect.

11. Coming to the apportionment of compensation, the order of the

tribunal discloses that the tribunal has taken into consideration about

filing of criminal case against the deceased for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code by the respondent No.3 and

further respondent No.3 and the deceased are living separately for the

MGP, J MACMA.No.1744 of 2017

last six years prior to the date of accident, has granted an amount of

Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.3. It is pertinent to state that the

marriage between the deceased and respondent No.3 is still subsisting

and there is no evidence to show that the respondent No.3 has taken

divorce from the deceased. As the Motor Vehicles Act is a piece of

beneficial legislation, all the dependants are the legal representatives of

the deceased and further respondent No.3 is the first wife of the

deceased. Therefore, she is also entitled for equal share of

compensation. Further the criminal cases will not binding on the

Motor Vehicles Act cases. Under these circumstances, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the amount apportioned to the respondent

No.3 is very less and the same is to be enhanced on par with the

petitioner No.1. The amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.3 comes to Rs.3,21,200/- (2,71,200 + 50,000 =

3,21,200) and the same is to be apportioned to the petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.3 equally, which comes to Rs.1,60,600/-.

11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of

modifying the apportionment of compensation to the petitioner No.1

and respondent No.3 at Rs.1,60,600/- each. In all other aspects, the

MGP, J MACMA.No.1744 of 2017

order of the Tribunal stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 01.03.2023 pgp