Madnam Yellaiah, Nizamabad Dist 5 ... vs The Depot Mgr, Apsrtc, Nizamabad ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1278 Tel

                                     1                             RRN,J
                                                            MACMA No.2275 of 2015




     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A. No. 2275 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A is filed by the appellants/petitioners under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dt.15.05.2012 in O.P NO.213 of 2007 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad (for short,

'the Tribunal').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed

before the Tribunal.

3. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.1,63,500/- to the petitioners against their

claim of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of their father,

Madanam Rama Swamy (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') due

to the accident which involved the Scooter he was riding bearing

No.AP-1/1585 and the bus of the respondents bearing No.AP-11-

X-1632. The appeal is filed questioning the negligence attributed to

the deceased, which led the Tribunal in awarding only 50% of the 2 RRN,J MACMA No.2275 of 2015

entitled amount of compensation and also the quantum of

compensation under various heads.

4. Heard Sri. Amrutha Sanjeeva, learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Thoom Srinivas, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents/RTC. Perused the

record.

5. It is contended by the petitioners that the Tribunal erred

in taking only Rs.3,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased

and sought to increase the same. It is further contended that the

Tribunal ought not to have deducted 50% of the entitled

compensation amount due to alleged contributory negligence of

the deceased as PW-4 who is the eye witness had categorically

deposed that the accident was due to the sole negligence of the

driver of the Bus. It is also contended that the petitioners are

entitled to just compensation under various heads as per the

settled law and the multiplier to be taken for the calculation of loss

of dependency is '14' instead of '13'. Accordingly, prayed to allow

the appeal.

6. Opposing the same, the respondents had contended

that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order as 3 RRN,J MACMA No.2275 of 2015

there indeed was contributory negligence on the part of the

deceased as rightly observed by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

7. This Court having considered the submissions of both

parties is of the view that the income of the deceased can be taken

on the higher side at Rs.4,500/- p.m in the absence of income

proof as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ramchandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Company Ltd.1 Thus, the annual income of the

petitioner would come to Rs.54,000/-. On this income, 25% is to

be added towards future prospects as the deceased was aged 45

years, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi2, and the same

would total to Rs.67,500/- (54,000/- + 13,500/-). Out of the

income, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses and the

appropriate multiplier is '14' as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Road

Transport Corporation3. Thus, the total loss of dependency

would come to Rs.67,500/- x ¾ x 14 = Rs. 7,08,750/-.

(2011 ) 13 SCC 236

(2017) 16 SCC 680.

(2009) 6 SCC 121.

                                           4                           RRN,J
                                                               MACMA No.2275 of 2015

8. The petitioners were awarded Rs.10,000/-, Rs.2,500/-

and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and

transportation charges respectively and the same are very meagre,

as such, they are enhanced to Rs.16,500/- (15,000 + 10%)

towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- (15,000 + 10%) towards

funeral expenses as per Pranay Sethi (supra), and Rs.3,000/-

towards transportation charges respectively. As petitioners No.3

to 6 were minors at the time of the death of the deceased, they are

entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head 'loss

of parental consortium' as per the ratio laid in Magma General

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram4 which totals

to Rs.1,60,000/-.

9. In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.9,04,750/-

(Rs.7,08,750/- + 16,500/- + 16,500/- + 3,000/- + 1,60,000/-)

towards compensation. The Tribunal awarded only 50%

compensation to the petitioners owing to the contributory

negligence of the deceased. This Court is inclined to alter such

finding by attributing 80% negligence on the part of the driver of

the Bus and 20% negligence on the part of the deceased in view of

the evidence of PW.4 who is the eyewitness despite there being no

2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 5 RRN,J MACMA No.2275 of 2015

material on record to prove as to who caused the accident.

Hence, the petitioners are awarded only Rs.7,23,800/- (Rupees

Seven lakh, twenty three thousand and eight hundred only) after

deducting 20% contributory negligence on the part of the

deceased.

10. This Court vide order dt.14.10.2015 in MACMAMP

No.4062 of 2015 had condoned the delay of 835 days in filing the

present appeal, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall

forego the interest for the delay period of 835 days, in the event the

appeal is being allowed. As such, the petitioners are not entitled to

interest for 835 days on the compensation amount.

11. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part,

enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,63,500/- to

Rs.7,23,800/- (Rupees Seven lakh, twenty three thousand and

eight hundred only) with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition

till the date of realization, excluding interest for a period of 835

days. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount

with interest and costs within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners are each

entitled to 1/6th share of compensation with proportionate costs 6 RRN,J MACMA No.2275 of 2015

and interest and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share

of the amount upon the deposit made by the respondents. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

___________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

16th day of March, 2023 BDR