Telangana High Court
J Janardhan Yadav Janardhan Rao, ... vs Apsrtc, Through Its Vc Md., Hyd on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.523 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 523 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A is filed by the claimants/petitioners
against the order and decree dated 26.07.2014 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.1439 of 2011 on the file XIII Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad (in short 'the Court below').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they are arrayed before the Court below.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 18.09.2007 at about 5.30 PM, one J. Janardhan Yadav
(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased petitioner') was standing
by the side of the road near Vegetable Market, Kushaiguda and
an RTC bus bearing No. AP-28-Z-1961 which was being driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from ECIL X
Road going towards Nagaram and dashed the petitioner, due to
which, the legs of the deceased petitioner were crushed under
the rear wheels of the bus. The deceased petitioner was
immediately rushed to a nearby hospital and later shifted to
Medicity Hospital and was admitted as an inpatient. His right leg
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.523 of 2015
was amputated below the knee and was being treated for injuries
to his left leg. The deceased petitioner was discharged on
29.10.2007 and incurred heavy medical expenditure including
the purchase of an artificial limb. The deceased petitioner filed
the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and
during its pendency, he passed away on 24.06.2012 leaving his
legal heirs who then got themselves impleaded as
petitioners/claimants No.2 to 4 and pursued the claim.
4. The respondent entered appearance and resisted the
claim by filing a counter.
5. The Court below after hearing both sides, framed
issues and for the petitioners, PWs1-6 were got examined and
marked Exhibits A1 to A16. The respondent neither adduced
either oral or documentary evidence.
6. The Court below after considering all issues, allowed
the petition in part by granting Rs.5,80,000/- with costs in all
with an interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing the
petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.523 of 2015
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present
M.A.C.M.A. is filed for enhancement of the amount.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
the tribunal granted less compensation without appreciating oral
and documentary evidence which was filed in support of the
petitioners' case and further failed to consider granting loss of
earnings of the deceased petitioner as he could not earn owing to
his injuries. He further contended that the deceased petitioner
was removed from his job by his employer HMT Bearing Ltd.
within two months from the date of his accident. Confining
himself to the above ground, the petitioners are seeking
enhancement of compensation under the head of loss of
earnings.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent argued that the death of the deceased petitioner was
not caused due to the accident and there is no inquest report. He
further contended that the deceased petitioner was discharged
on 29.10.2007 and was very much able to work and submitted
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.523 of 2015
that the court below was justified in awarding the amount in
question and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having considered the rival contentions of both
parties, this Court is of the considered view, that the Court below
erred in not computing the loss of earnings of the deceased
petitioner for the time period of out of employment, till his death,
as the deceased petitioner lost his employment due to the
accident which resulted in the amputation of one leg below the
knee and serious injury to the other. There is no rebuttal
evidence adduced by the respondent to disprove the same. It can
be safely concluded that had it been the deceased petitioner, who
was not injured, he would have continued his employment,
including the possibility to be granted more DA and allowances
as per the evidence of PW6. In the absence of any evidence, oral
or documentary, to prove that the petitioner might have had
another source of income, keeping in view the object of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 being a beneficial legislation, this Court is of
the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to just compensation
including future prospects, till the date of the death of the
deceased petitioner, under the head 'loss of earnings'.
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.523 of 2015
11. Admittedly, the petitioner was earning a sum of
Rs.18,816/- per month which comes to Rs.2,25,792/- per
annum. As the dependents are 3 in number, the contribution of
the deceased petitioner would be 1/3rd , deducting the same, his
income per annum would be Rs.1,50,603/- (Rs.2,25,792/- -
1/3rd). There is no document to show the age of the deceased
petitioner, nor there is any submission made by the counsel to
that effect. Hence, it is not feasible to compute future prospects.
On examination, it is arrived that the petitioner was out of
employment for 56 months, as such, the loss of earnings would
be Rs.1,50,603/- x 56 = Rs.7,02,814/- which is substituted in
place of Rs.1,00,000/- which was awarded by the Court below.
The petitioners were awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical
expenses, Rs.80,000/- for injuries and Rs.1,00,000/- for extra
nourishment, travelling and attendance charges and the same is
reasonable, hence no interference is required.
12. In all, the petitioners are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.11,82,814/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh, Eighty
Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fourteen only).
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part and the
compensation amount awarded by the Court below is enhanced
6 RRN,J
MACMA No.523 of 2015
from Rs.5,80,000/- to Rs.11,82,814/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh,
Eighty Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fourteen only) with
interest at 7.5 % p.a from the date of petition till the date of
realization. The respondent is directed to deposit said amount
with costs and interest 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. There shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
1st day of March, 2023.
BDR
