The Telangana State Road ... vs K. Balachary
2023 Latest Caselaw 1025 Tel

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

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.2022 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by Telangana State Road

Transport Corporation, questioning the award and decree, dated

10.05.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1296 of 2013 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

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

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of K.Janardhan

Chary, husband of claimant No.2, father of claimant No.1, Son

of claimant No.3 (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') in a road

accident that occurred on 31.03.2013. It is stated that on the

fateful day, at about 5:00 p.m., while the deceased was crossing

the road, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 2485 being driven by

its driver came in rash and negligent with high speed in

opposite direction and dashed the deceased, as a result of

which, the deceased sustained severe head injury. Immediately,

he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment and later, on

01.04.2013, the deceased died while undergoing treatment.

MGP, J Macma_2022_2018

According to the claimants, the deceased was hale and healthy,

aged 50 years and was earning Rs.7,000/- per month besides

Rs.100/- per day as incentives by working as carpenter at

Srinivasa Wood Furniture Shop at B.N.Reddy, Sagar Road,

Hyderabad. The deceased used to contribute his earnings for

the welfare of his family, but due to the sudden and untimely

death of the deceased, the claimants lost their bread winner,

love and affection besides losing future earnings and

dependency on the deceased. Therefore, the claimants have

claimed Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation against the

respondents.

4. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the

respondent Nos.1 & 2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both

oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has allowed the

O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.7,65,800/- with interest

at 9% per annum to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 & 2

jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal

has been filed by the TSRTC.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

MGP, J Macma_2022_2018

6. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for

the appellants is that there is a contributory negligence on the

part of the deceased as he came on the main road from behind a

parked lorry without observing the offending vehicle i.e., RTC

bus, on seeing the same the driver of the RTC bus applied

breaks and stopped the bus by taking it to his extreme left side

of the road, even then the deceased who is a pedestrian came in

contact with the stationed RTC bus, as such the appellant-

Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation. However,

appellants-Corporation has not examined the driver of the RTC

bus or any passenger in the bus to support their version.

Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the

contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-

Corporation that there is contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased, is not sustainable.

7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the

case of the claimants is that the deceased was earning

Rs.7,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day as incentives by

working as a Carpenter at Srinivasa Wood Furniture Shop,

B.N.Reddy, Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Except oral evidence of

PW.2, the claimants in order prove the income of deceased, no

documentary evidence is produced. Hence, the Tribunal has

MGP, J Macma_2022_2018

taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month,

which is very less. However, considering the age and avocation

of the deceased, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the

deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month as he is a skilled person and

25% has to be added, towards future prospects as per the

decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, which comes to

Rs.7,500/- (Rs.6,000 + 1,500). After deducting 1/3rd towards

personal expenses, the income of the deceased comes to

Rs.5,000/-. As per the records, the deceased was aged about

50 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the appropriate

multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 is "13". Thus, the

future loss of income comes to Rs.7,80,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 12

x 13). That apart, the claimant is entitled to Rs.77,000/- under

conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi (Supra). Thus, in all,

the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,57,000/-, which is just and

reasonable.

8. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. However, the

compensation of Rs.7,65,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is

hereby enhanced to Rs.8,57,000/-, to be paid by the

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_2022_2018

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced

compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the

date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced

compensation amount shall be apportioned among the

claimants in the ratio as determined by the Tribunal. Time to

deposit the entire compensation is one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claimants shall pay the

deficit court fee and on such payment of court fee only, they are

entitled to withdraw the compensation amount without

furnishing any security. No costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 01.03.2023 Gms/pgp

MGP, J Macma_2022_2018

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

M.A.C.M.A. No.2022 of 2018

DATE: 02.03.2023

Gms/pgp