Apsrtc Another vs Ms Maddineni Laxmi Gowthami
2023 Latest Caselaw 1458 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
                M.A.C.M.A.NO.1374 OF 2015
                             AND
            CROSS OBJECTIONS No.44 OF 2022



COMMON JUDGMENT:

     This M.A.C.M.A and cross objections are being

disposed of by way of this common judgment as both these

matters are directed against the award dated 10.04.2014,

passed in M.V.O.P.No.924 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Special Sessions Judge for

Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-Cum-VIII

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B.Nagar ( for short "the Tribunal).


2.   In M.A.C.M.A No.1374 of 2015 the Appellant/RTC

had challenged the award with regard to its legality and

prayed to set aside the same, and the cross objections

No.44 of 2022, the respondent/petitioner is questioning

the quantum and prayed to enhance the same.

3. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are

arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

                                  2                                RRN,J
                                                MACMA No.1374 of 2015 &
                                                        Cross objections


4.   The brief facts of the case are as follows.            That on

20.08.2011,   the   petitioner       along    with   her     mother

Smt M. Vijaya and her aunt Smt M. Rama Lakshmi

intended to proceed from Moosapet to S.R.Nagar. When

they were waiting at Moosapet Bus Stop, one APSRTC bus

bearing No.AP-11-Z-6551 which was coming from the

Kukatpally side and the bus was stopped at the Moosapet

Bus stop the petitioner boarded the bus and enquired the

bus conductor whether the bus was going to S.R.Nagar, the

conductor informed her that the bus was not bound to

S.R.Nagar and asked her to get down from the bus and on

the advice of the conductor, she tried to get down from the

bus and at the same time, driver of the bus suddenly

moved the bus and started with high speed though the

conductor did not give any signal to the driver to proceed

the bus. As a result, she fell down from the bus and the

left side of the rear wheel ran over her right leg, due to

which, she sustained a crush injury to her right ankle.

Immediately, after the accident, she was shifted to Prime

Hospital and underwent surgery. At the time of the

accident, she got admission in NOVA Business School for

MBA which is Post Graduation Diploma in Management.

                                       3                                RRN,J
                                                     MACMA No.1374 of 2015 &
                                                             Cross objections

She deposited a sum of Rs.83,000/- towards the fee for the

first year and Rs.17,000/- for transportation and paid

Rs.4,00,000/- towards the donation. As a result of her

injuries, she claimed Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. Respondent No.2 was set ex-parte and respondent

No.1 filed counter denying the allegations made in the

petition.

6. In proof of the case, the claimant was examined as

PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A36. On behalf of

respondent No.1 neither oral nor documentary evidence

was adduced.

7. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal

allowed the O.P. by granting compensation of

Rs.20,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- with

interest @ 6% p.a.

8. In order to maintain the cross-objections, the

petitioner filed I.A. No.1 of 2022 for condoning the delay of

125 days in filing the cross-objections. The reasons

assigned in the accompanying affidavit are satisfactory,

hence the same is allowed. Apart from I.A. No.1 of 2022, 4 RRN,J MACMA No.1374 of 2015 & Cross objections

the petitioner also filed I.A. No.2 of 2022 for amendment of

claim from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/-. Hence, the

present appeal and cross- objections.

9. Learned counsel for respondents/RTC had

contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding the

compensation more than that was claimed in the absence

of income proof, and no independent witnesses were

examined despite the petitioner pleaded that her mother

and aunt were along with her and this itself proves that

there was no rash and negligent act of the driver of the

bus. He further contended that the Tribunal failed to

accept the grounds of respondents that the petitioner did

not produce any evidence with regard to payment of

Rs.5,00,000/- towards her education; that there is a delay

of 5 days in complaining with the police and the petitioner

did not suffer any disability as the injury was only crush

injury. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the

loss of earnings @ 100% instead of 40% and further

contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted 5 RRN,J MACMA No.1374 of 2015 & Cross objections

compensation under the heads of loss of amenities and

loss of marital prospects. He also contended that future

prospects @ 40% ought to have been added to the income

of the petitioner. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal

and allow the cross objections.

11. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner

adduced evidence by examining herself as PW.1 and

marked Ex.A1/C.C. of FIR and Ex.A2/charge sheet in

order to prove the involvement of bus of the respondent in

the accident resulting in injuries to her. The

respondents/RTC's contention that the accident was not

proved as the petitioner failed to examine her mother and

aunt, miserably fails as no contrary evidence was adduced

on their behalf. As such, the evidence adduced by the

petitioner suffices this aspect in her favour.

12. The further contention of the respondents that the

Tribunal ought to have considered the monthly income of

the petitioner on the lower side in the absence of income

proof is, to be analysed. The petitioner is a graduate and

claimed that she got admission into MBA course. The

Tribunal considered the monthly income of the petitioner 6 RRN,J MACMA No.1374 of 2015 & Cross objections

at Rs.12,000/- relying on the decision of this Court in

Remulamma Vs. Venkatesh Bus Union & Anr.1

In justification of the above exercise done by Tribunal,

learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following

decisions:

i. Meena Pawaia Vs. Ashraf Ali - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - 2022(1) ALD 54 (SC).

ii. N. Surender Rao Vs. B. Swamy - High Court of Andhra Pradesh - 2014 ACJ 2613.

13. The first decision pertains to the case of a person

studying in 3rd year of B.E/civil engineering who died in a

motor vehicle accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

determined the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.10,000/- p.m. for the calculation as loss of income of

the deceased.

The second decision pertains to the case of an

engineering graduate who died in a motor vehicle accident.

This Court sustained the finding of the Tribunal that the

engineering graduate's monthly income could be taken at

Rs.12,000/- p.m.

2009 (3) L.S 173 (D.B) 7 RRN,J MACMA No.1374 of 2015 & Cross objections

14. In the present case, the petitioner suffered a crush

injury to her ankle and as observed from the record, she

filed proofs of the same, including Ex.A32/Academic

Education Certificate, in proof of her graduation. Thus,

applying the above decisions and the decision relied by the

Tribunal to the present case, the income of the petitioner

can be safely concluded as the same i.e Rs.12,000/- p.m.

15. As the income of the petitioner is taken as

Rs.12,000/- per month, 40% future prospects is to be

added in view of the decision in National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi2 as the petitioner was

aged 21 years at the time of the accident. Thus, the

monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.12,000/- + 40% =

Rs.16,800/-. Hence, the annual income comes to

Rs.2,01,600/- (Rs.16,800/- x 12) and for the purpose of

calculation of loss of future earnings, the same is to be

multiplied with '18' as per Sarla Varma V. Delhi

Transport Corporation3 and 40% of such amount is to be

considered in respect of disability i.e. Rs.2,01,600 x 18 x

40% = Rs.14,51,520/-. Learned counsel for petitioner

2 (2017) 16 SCC 680.

(2009) 6 SCC 121 8 RRN,J MACMA No.1374 of 2015 & Cross objections

contended that the disability should be taken at 100% for

the purpose of loss of future earnings but the same is

rejected as no cogent material or oral evidence leans in

favour of his contention. At the same time, the ground of

the respondents that the disability of the petitioner as

alleged is not permanent in nature is also rejected as the

respondents neither adduced contrary evidence nor elicited

anything in the cross-examination.

16. The petitioner was not awarded compensation under

the head loss of amenities and loss of future marriage

prospects. This Court is inclined to award Rs.50,000/-

and Rs.50,000/- respectively under the above heads.

Compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the

remaining heads is justified.

17. In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.25,14,720/-

(Rs.14,51,520/- + 50,000/- + 50,000/- + 5,000/- +

5,26,271/- + 2,00,000/- + 2,00,000/- + 31,929/-). It is

noticed that the Tribunal awarded interest on the

compensation amount @ 6% p.a., but now the Courts are

awarding interest @ 7.5% p.a. As such, the petitioner is

entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a. 9 RRN,J MACMA No.1374 of 2015 & Cross objections

18. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. No.1374 of 2015 is

dismissed while the Cross Objections No.44 of 2022 is

allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount

awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.20,00,000/- to

Rs.25,14,720/- (Rupees Twenty five lakh, fourteen

thousand, seven hundred and twenty only) with interest of

7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The respondents shall deposit the said compensation

amount together with interest and costs after giving due

credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is

permitted to withdraw the entire amount subject to

payment of the deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

29th day of March, 2023 PNS/BDR