Telangana High Court
Aspsrtc Another vs A Swathi Lavanya 3 Others on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.1385 & 1631 OF 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A No.1385 OF 2015
&
M.A.C.M.A No.1631 OF 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both these Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
being disposed of by way of this common judgment as both these
appeals are directed against the award dt.29.09.2014 in M.V.O.P
No.2725 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad
(Hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
2. In M.A.C.M.A No.1385 of 2016 the
Appellants/Respondents/RTC had challenged the award and prayed
to set aside the same, and in M.A.C.M.A No.1631of 2016, the
Appellants/Petitioners/Claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation and prayed to enhance the same.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in M.A.C.M.A No.
1631 of 2016 are discussed hereunder and the parties are hereinafter
referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
2 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.1385 & 1631 OF 2015
4. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.08.2011 at about 9
a.m when one A. Ram Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased')
and his friend were proceeding on a motorcycle from Bonthapally
towards Gummadidala Village and while reaching to Gummadidala
outskirts near the substation, one APSRTC bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-
4999 which was driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and
negligent manner over took the said motorcycle bearing No. AP-28-BH-
4408 turned the bus to the extreme left side and applied sudden
brakes to avoid a head-on collision with another vehicle, due to which,
the APSRTC bus dashed the motorcycle and the deceased and his
friend fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The doctors declared
the deceased to be brought dead.
4.1 Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy,
aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing
a dairy farm business and used to contribute the same to his family.
The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-6771.
5. Respondents filed a counter denying the averments of the
petition and contended that the driver of the RTC bus is not
responsible for the accident.
3 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.1385 & 1631 OF 2015
6. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and
got marked Exs.A1 to A8. No evidence, either oral or documentary was
adduced by the respondents.
7. On appreciating the material available on record, the
Tribunal awarded Rs.17,55,000/- to the petitioners towards
compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners and respondents
have filed separate appeals as stated supra.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had
contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre amount
towards compensation. He further contended that the Tribunal failed
to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- p.m but has
considered it to be only Rs.10,000/- p.m and the same is to be
enhanced. He further contended that the petitioners are entitled to
compensation under conventional heads as per the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi1and Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram2. Accordingly, prayed to allow their appeal
and dismiss the appeal of the respondents.
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
2018 Law Suit (SC) 904
4 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.1385 & 1631 OF 2015
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents had contended that the Tribunal ought not to have
awarded compensation to the petitioners as the petitioners failed to
make the insurer of the motorcycle party to the case. He further
contended that the income of the deceased cannot be considered to be
Rs.10,000/- per month as no income proof was filed. In such
situations, a notional income of Rs.4,500/- p.m. He also contended
that the compensation awarded towards funeral expenses, loss of love
and affection and loss of consortium are liable to be reduced.
Accordingly prayed to dismiss the appeal of the petitioners and allow
their appeal
11. This court is not inclined to interfere with the aspect as to
how the accident took place viz. the 1st issue framed by the Tribunal,
which was answered in favour of the petitioners, as the respondents
failed to adduce any evidence to prove the contrary. Mere stating that
there is a discrepancy between the evidence of PWs is not a ground to
rebut the case of the petitioners.
12. It is observed from the impugned order that the Tribunal
considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- despite
the petitioners claiming that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/-
p.m and filed Ex.A-7 bank statement of the deceased. Learned counsel
for the petitioners prayed that the income is to be increased while the
5 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.1385 & 1631 OF 2015
learned Counsel for the respondents prayed to reduce the income of
the deceased to Rs.4,500/- as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ramchandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance
Insurance Company Ltd.3. This Court is not inclined to alter the
monthly income of the deceased as fixed by the Tribunal and it is
taken as Rs.10,000/- p.m itself as mere filing of bank statement
showing credit entries would not mean that the deceased was earning
Rs.30,000/- p.m out of his business. It is observed that the Tribunal
failed to award future aspects on the income of the deceased and the
petitioners are entitled to the same as per Pranay Sethi (supra).
Thus, loss of dependency would tune to as follows:
Head Calculation
Monthly income of the deceased Rs.10,000/-
Annual income Rs.1,20,000/- (10,000 x 12)
Future prospects at 40% - Age of Rs.48,000/- (40% of
deceased - 28 years
Rs.1,20,000/-)
Annual income + future prospects Rs.1,68,000/-
Deduction towards personal Rs.42,000/-
expenses (1/4thas dependents are
(Rs.1,68,000/- divided by 4)
4 in number)
(supra)
Loss of dependency Rs.21,42,000/-
(Rs.1,26,000/- x 17)
(2011 ) 13 SCC 236
6 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.1385 & 1631 OF 2015
13. This Court is further inclined to reduce/enhance the
compensation amount under other heads. Learned Counsel for the
respondents contended that the compensation awarded under the
heads 'loss of love and affection' and 'funeral expenses' is excessive.
The same is liable to be altered/deleted. Further, the petitioners are
entitled to compensation towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and
loss of consortium.as per Pranay Sethi (supra).
14. Hence, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to the
following compensation:
HEAD AMOUNT AWARDED BY AMOUNT AWARDED BY
THE TRIBUNAL THIS COURT
Loss of dependency Rs.15,30,000/- Rs.21,42,000/-
Loss of estate Nil Rs.16,500/- (15,000 +
10% thereof) as per
Pranay Sethi.
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.16,500/- (15,000 +
10% thereof) as per
Pranay Sethi.
Loss of Spousal Nil Rs.44,000/- (40,000 +
Consortium 10% thereof) as per
Pranay Sethi.
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- (Now under
to 2nd petitioner the head 'Loss of Parental
Consortium'
Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.80,000/- to Petitioners
and consortium to 3 & 4 (Now under the
petitioners head 'Loss of Filial
Consortium)
Total Rs.17,55,000/- Rs.23,39,000/-
7 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.1385 & 1631 OF 2015
15. Thus, the appellants/petitioners are entitled to the
enhanced compensation of Rs.23,39,000/- as against the awarded
amount of Rs.17,55,000/-
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions
i) Nagappa Vs. Guru Dayal Singh - 2000 ACJ 12; ii) Adam Indur
Muttmma Vs. Rathod Rediya - 2015 (4) ALD 585; iii) Ramla and Ors.
Vs. Shantana Goudar - 2019 (1) ACC 346; stating that the Courts are
empowered to grant compensation more than that of claim. A perusal
of the said decisions reveals that the Courts are empowered to grant
'just' compensation, however, the claimants shall deposit the court
fees on the enhanced compensation. As such, there is no irregularity
in awarding compensation more than which that of the claimed
amount.
17. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A No. 1631 of 2015 filed by the
petitioners/claimants is allowed, enhancing the compensation amount
from Rs.17,55,000/- to Rs.23,39,000/-(Rupees Twenty Three
LakhsThirty Nine Thousand only) which shall carry interest @ 7.5%
p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization. The petitioners
are directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount
within (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Similarly, the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount
along with interest and costs, after deducting the amount if any
8 RRN,J
COMMON JUDGMENT IN
MACMA No.1385 & 1631 OF 2015
already deposited, within (02) months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned
between the petitioners in the same manner and ratio as ordered by
the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
M.A.C.M.A NO. 1385 OF 2015
In view of the findings in M.A.C.M.A No. 1631 of 2015, this
M.A.C.M.A No. 1385 of 2015 is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No.1385 of 2015 filed by the
Appellants/Respondents/RTC is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in both
the appeals, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
14th day of March, 2023.
BDR
