Telangana High Court
Pankerla Sujatha vs Apsrtc, Rep. By Its General ... on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.1909 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1909 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants/claimants
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the
Order and decree, dated 09.03.2011, passed in M.V.O.P.No.897
of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (PoA)
cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the
Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of
the death of Pankerla Srishailam ('the deceased') in the
accident. It is stated that on 21.02.2009, the deceased was
riding his new Pulsar Motor Cycle with two pillion riders on
National High Way No.9 from Hayath Nagar towards his village
2 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1909 of 2014
Sherigudem. When the deceased reached the Kothaguda stage,
the bus of A.P.S.R.T.C. bearing No.AP-10-Z-8055 of
Hyderabad-2 depot proceeding from Batasingaram Village
towards Pochampally Village came at a high speed and dashed
the motorcycle driven by the deceased. The deceased and the
two pillion riders sustained grievous injuries and were shifted
to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, on the very next day,
while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to
injuries. The deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 28
years on the date of the accident. He was earning Rs.8,000/-
per month doing centring work and also doing cultivation and
his overall income per annum was Rs.1,00,000/-. Due to the
said accident, the first petitioner lost her life partner and
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 lost their father and his affection in their
premature age. Therefore, the petitioners claimed
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were set ex parte and
respondent No.1 filed counter before the Tribunal stating that
the petitioners are not legal heirs of the deceased and they
3 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1909 of 2014
have not filed any proof to that extent. However, the petition
itself is liable to be dismissed for not joining the owner of the
motorcycle as a party and the deceased died not by rashness or
negligent driving of the bus driver but as the deceased was
riding a motorcycle along with two others, which is
manufactured only for two persons and therefore, he himself
contributed to his fatality. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of
the appeal.
5. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW.1
to PW.3 and marked Ex.A1 to A10. No oral or documentary
evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
6. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal
allowed the claim in part by granting compensation of
Rs.4,88,125/- with interest @ 6 % p.a to the petitioners.
Questioning the quantum, the present appeal is filed.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned
Counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record.
4 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1909 of 2014
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the annual income
of the deceased as Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/-
despite ample evidence being present on the record. He further
contended that the petitioners are entitled to additional
compensation under the head of future prospects. He also
contended that the Tribunal ought not to have reduced 25% of
the entitled compensation as there is no negligence on part of
the deceased and the police investigation proved that the driver
of the RTC bus was solely responsible for the accident.
Accordingly, prayed to enhance the compensation amount.
9. Opposing the same, the learned Counsel appearing for
the 1st respondent contended that the Tribunal was justified in
awarding the deducted compensation amount under various
heads, inter alia, owing to the contributed negligence of the
deceased and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Upon careful perusal of the record and in light of the
submissions made by both counsel, this Court is of the
considered view that the Tribunal ought to have considered the
5 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1909 of 2014
income of the deceased more than that of which it arrived at. It
is an undisputed fact that the deceased was working as a
centring worker, bearing an I.D. card issued by the Centring
Contractors Association. The Tribunal guessed the annual
income of the deceased to be Rs.50,000/- per annum
(Rs.4,166/- per month) on the ground that the deceased
cannot be considered to be working every day. However, time
and again, this Court has considered the minimum monthly
earnings of skilled labour to be Rs.6,000/-. As such, this Court
is inclined to fix the monthly earnings of the deceased @
Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal did not add future
prospects to the income of the deceased and the same exercise
would be done, including enhancing compensation under
different heads, as follows:
The petitioners were granted Rs.4,88,125/- and the
same is interfered with in the following manner:
Head Amount arrived at by Amount arrived at
the Tribunal by this Court
Salary of deceased Rs.4,1666/- p.m Rs.6,000/- p.m
Annual income Rs.50,000/- Rs.72,000/-
(Rs.4,1666/- x 12) (Rs.6,000 x 12)
Future prospects Nil Rs.28,800/- (40% to
6 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1909 of 2014
be taken as per
Pranay Sethi)
Annual Income + Future Rs.50,000/- + Nil Rs.1,00,800/-
prospects
Deduction towards Rs.12,500/- Rs.33,596/-
personal expenses (Mistakenly deducted (1/3rd deduction)
1/4th)
Age Multiplier 17 "17" (As per Sarla
Verma)
Loss of dependency Rs.6,37,500/- Rs.11,42,468/-
(37,500/- x 17) (Rs.67,204/- x 17)
excluding future including future
prospects. prospects
Loss of Estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10%
as per Pranay Sethi)
Funeral Expenses Nil Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10%
as per Pranay Sethi)
Loss of Spousal Rs.5,000/- Rs.44,000/-
Consortium (Rs.40,000/- + 10%
as per Pranay Sethi)
Loss of Parental Nil Rs.80,000/-
Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to
petitioner No.2 and 3)
Total Rs.6,47,500/- Rs.12,95,468/-
But awarded But awarded
Rs.4,88,125/- due to Rs.9,71,601/- due to
deduction of 25% deduction of 25%
owing to deceased's owing to the
negligence. deceased's
negligence.
11. With regard to the contributory negligence at 25%
attributed against the deceased, the Tribunal arrived at such a
conclusion keeping in view that the deceased was riding the
motorcycle carrying two pillion riders. The Tribunal rightly
relied upon the decision of this Court in United India
7 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1909 of 2014
Insurance Co., Ldt. Vs. V.K. Anjaiah1 wherein the culpability
in causing the accident was fixed at 75% on the part of the
driver of the offending vehicle and 25% on the part of the
deceased riding the scooter with two pillion riders. As the above
mentioned case is similar to that of the case at hand, there is
no fault in attributing 25% negligence to the deceased in order
to deduct compensation. In all, the petitioners are entitled to
Rs.12,95,468/- but only awarded Rs.9,71,601/- due to
deduction of 25% owing to the deceased's negligence.
13. Though the claimed amount is Rs.5,00,000/-, invoking the
principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh2, this Court
is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 4,88,125/-
to Rs.9,71,601/- (Rupees Nine Lakh, Seventy One Thousand
Six Hundred and One Rupee only) with interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of
2004 (4) ALD 444.
MANU/SC/0480/2013
8 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.1909 of 2014
realization. The 1st respondent shall deposit the said
compensation amount together with interest and costs within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned by
the petitioners in the ratio and manner as directed by the
Tribunal. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the
deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
1st day of March, 2023
PNS
