Telangana High Court

The Managing Director, vs Smt. Basika Laxmi , Shasikala on 25 September, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
               M.A.C.M.A.No.1546 OF 2014
                            AND
           CROSS OBJECTIONS No.9569 OF 2014



COMMON JUDGMENT:

     M.A.C.M.A.No.1546 of 2014 and Cross Objections are

being disposed of by way of this common judgment as both

these matters are directed against the Judgment and

decree dated 25.01.2010, passed in Original Petition

No.2144 of 2007 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Mahila Court at Hyderabad (for short "the Court

below").


2.   In M.A.C.M.A No.1546 of 2014, the Appellants/RTC

had challenged the Judgment passed in O.P.No.2144 of

2007 by the Court below.      The petitioners/respondents

filed Cross Objections No.9569 of 2014 in the said appeal

for enhancement of the compensation.

3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be

referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

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

26.06.2007, while the deceased Basika Ramanarayana 2 RRN,J MACMA No.1546 of 2014 & Cross objections

Reddy and Naveen Reddy were proceeding to Bolaram from

Lothukunta by Honda Activa Scooter bearing No.AP-9AK-

4751, and when they reached opposite to Hanuman

Temple, Lothukunta, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-

2970 came from the backside and, while overtaking the

deceased scooter in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

the scooter. As a result, Ramanarayan Reddy and Naveen

Reddy fell down from the scooter. The bus's rear left side

wheel ran over the deceased's body and received grievous

injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital,

Secunderabad. The Doctor examined him and declared

him dead. A case was registered against the driver of the

Bus in Crime No.62 of 2007. Hence, the claim petition.

5. Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations

made in the petition.

6. In proof of their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1

to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. No evidence was

adduced on behalf of the respondents.

7. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Court

below allowed the O.P. in part by granting compensation of

Rs.6,90,000/- as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/- with 3 RRN,J MACMA No.1546 of 2014 & Cross objections

interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till date of

realisation.

8. Learned counsel for respondents/RTC had contended

that the Court below wrongly came to the conclusion that

the accident occurred was only due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the Bus. It ought to have held that

the rider of the Honda Activa Motorcycle bearing No.AP-

9AK-4751 was also equally responsible for the accident.

They further contended that the Court below failed to see

that the insurer and owner of the Honda Activa Motorcycle

were not made as parties to the Original Petition. As such,

the claim petition is bad for the non-joinder of necessary

parties. They further contended that the Court below erred

in taking the deceased's income as Rs.5,500/- p.m. and

excessively granted Rs.15,000/- towards consortium and

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards

funeral expenses.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

petitioners contended that the Court below had erred in

not taking the future prospects of the income of the

deceased, the Court below failed to award compensation 4 RRN,J MACMA No.1546 of 2014 & Cross objections

towards pain and sufferings, and the Court below failed to

award the amount under conventional heads and prayed to

enhance the compensation amount. Accordingly, prayed to

dismiss the appeal filed by the RTC, and allow the cross

objections.

10. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners

adduced evidence of PW.2/eyewitness and got marked

Ex.A1/C.C. of FIR and Ex.A2/charge sheet to prove the

involvement of bus of the respondents in the accident and

rash and negligent driving by the driver of their Bus,

resulting in death of the deceased. The respondents

contend that there was contributory negligence on the part

of the driver of the RTC and on the part of the deceased.

Having pleaded so, they did not adduce any evidence, and

the Court below elaborately discussed the negligence

aspect and rightly came to the conclusion that the accident

was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of

APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-2970. Hence, this Court

is not intending to interfere with the negligence aspect.

                                 5                                RRN,J
                                               MACMA No.1546 of 2014 &
                                                       Cross objections

11. The respondents further contention that the Court

below ought to have considered the monthly income of the

petitioner on the lower side. It is the contention of the

petitioners that the deceased was working as a driver with

Mahender Reddy Water Suppliers and Civil Contractor

Establishment, and he was earning Rs.5,500/- per month.

To corroborate the same, the petitioners have examined

PW.3/C. Mahender Reddy, deposed that he was a Civil

Contractor and he was carrying out the works in Indian Air

Lines, Begumpet, and the deceased was working as a

Tractor driver in his establishment for water supplies since

01.02.2005 till his death. Apart from that, petitioners have

also filed Ex.A7/salary certificate issued by PW.3, which

shows that the deceased was working as a driver in

Mahendra Reddy Water Suppliers, which carries works of

an Indian Air Lines, Begumpet, and his monthly salary was

at Rs.5,500/-. PW.3 admitted that he issued Ex.A7, and

he used to pay the monthly salary of Rs.5,500/-. The

petitioners have also filed Ex.A8, which is AAI Airfield

Driving Permit, Hyderabad Airport, issued in the

deceased's name. Taking into consideration of the evidence

of PW.3, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8, the Court below rightly fixed the 6 RRN,J MACMA No.1546 of 2014 & Cross objections

salary of the deceased at Rs.5,500/- per month, which

needs no interference by this Court.

12. The annual income of the deceased would come to

Rs.66,000/- (Rs.5,500/- x 12). To this, future prospects of

40%, i.e. Rs.26,400/- is to be added as per the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi1 as the deceased was

aged 35 years. Since the dependants are 5 in number, a

deduction of 1/4th of the deceased's income towards

personal expenses, which the deceased might have spent

for himself, is proper. The appropriate multiplier as per the

decision of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation 2 is "16". Thus, the total loss of dependency

would come to Rs.11,08,800/- (Rs.66,000/- + 40% Minus

1/4th x 16).

13. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

consortium to the first petitioner, Rs.5,000/- towards

funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate to

the petitioners, which are very meagre. However, the

petitioners are entitled to compensation under conventional

(2017) 16 SCC 680.

(2009) 6 SCC 121.

                                       7                               RRN,J
                                                    MACMA No.1546 of 2014 &
                                                            Cross objections

heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma Insurance Company

Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram 3. petitioner No.1,

being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.44,000/-

towards spousal consortium, petitioners No.2 and 3, who

are declared as majors vide orders in IA No.1 of 2022

dt.10.02.2023, as such, they are not entitled any amount

towards parental consortium. However, petitioners No.4

and 5, being parents of the deceased, are entitled to

Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/- towards loss of filial

consortium, and petitioners are also entitled to Rs.16,500/-

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