Smt. Ramolla Laxmi vs The Telangana State Road ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1178 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.862 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Nizamabad in M.V.O.P. No. 96 of

2016, dated 07.12.2017, the present appeal is filed by the

claimants.

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioner, on 04.01.2016 at about 13-00

hours at Kanjar village, while the deceased Gadasandu Rajavva

was waiting for bus, in the meantime one RTC bus bearing No.

AP.29.Z.1315 came from Nizamabad being driven by its driver

in rash and negligent manner and dashed her, due to which

she fell down on the road and the bus ran over her, as a result

of which, she sustained bleeding injuries and crush injuries all

over the body and died on the spot. According to the

petitioners, the deceased was aged 60 years, beedi roller and

earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Thus the petitioner is claiming

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the respondent-The

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation.

4. Respondent-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

petitioner is excessive.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-The

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation. Perused the

material available on record.

6. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation along with

proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till realization, to the appellant-claimant against

the respondent-Corporation.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has

submitted that although the claimant, by way of evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, and Exs.A.1 to A.5, established the fact that the

death of the deceased-Rajavva was caused in a motor accident,

the Tribunal awarded meager amount.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent-Corporation sought to sustain the impugned award

of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has awarded

reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference

by this Court.

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

of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e.,

RTC bus bearing No. AP.29.Z.1315. However, the Tribunal

after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the

documentary evidence available on record rightly held that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle.

10. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged

60 years, working as beedi roller and used to earn Rs.10,000/-

per month. But as per the postmortem examination report and

inquest report, the deceased was aged 70 years. Thus, the

tribunal has rightly considered the age of the deceased as 70

years. However, as the deceased was aged 70 years as on the

date of accident, the Tribunal has taken the income of the

deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which appears to be very

less. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the income of the

deceased as a beedi roller at Rs.4,500/- per month. As stated

above, the age of the deceased was 70 years as on the date of

accident. Since the deceased left the petitioner as her

dependant, 1/3rd of her income is to be deducted towards her

personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the

deceased would be Rs.3,000/- (4,500 - 1,500 = 3,000) per

month. Since the deceased was aged about 70 years at the time

of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the

Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1

would be "5". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.3,000/-

x 12 x 5 = Rs.1,80,000/-. In addition thereto, under the

conventional heads, the claimant is granted Rs.77,000/- as per

the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus,

in all, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.2,57,000/-.

11. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending

RTC Bus. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the

respondent-Corporation is liable to pay the compensation to the

petitioner.

12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,57,000/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the

date of realization, to be payable by the respondent-

Corporation. The amount shall be deposited within a period of

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On

such deposit, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 13.03.2023 pgp