Telangana High Court
Telangana State Road Transport ... vs N.Neelima Reddy on 18 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.588 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned standing counsel Sri Thoom Srinivas for the
appellant-TSRTC and the learned counsel Sri K.Sai Sri Harsha for
the respondents-claimants.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-TSRTC
challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.761 of 2016, dated
06.10.2022, thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the
TSRTC.
3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they
are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
On 25.11.2015 at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased went outside to
meet his friend on his motorcycle bearing registration No.TS-16-EE-
LNA,J
MACMA No.588 of 2023
7879 and when he reached near Golconda cross-roads, the
respondent no.3, who is driver of RTC bus bearing registration
No.AP-11-Z-7418, drove the bus in rash and negligent manner in
high speed and dashed the deceased and the deceased fell down,
sustained bleeding injuries to his head and died on the spot. The
Police, Chikkadapally Police Station, registered a case in Crime
No.521/2015 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the
offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimants, i.e., the parents of the deceased, have filed
claim petition against appellant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and Rule 475/1B of APMV Rules, 1989 before the Tribunal
claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest from
the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
6. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 18 years as
on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was 1st year
engineering student of Keshava Memoraial Engineering College;
that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by giving the
LNA,J
tuitions and was contributing the same to the welfare of his family
and that claimants lost the support of the deceased.
7. The 3rd respondent-driver of the RTC Bus, remained ex parte.
The appellants-TSRTC filed counter denying the averments made in
the claim petition with respect to the relationship of the petitioners
with the deceased, age, income, health, manner of accident,
involvement of the RTC bus in the accident. It is contended that the
deceased was riding the motorcycle in high speed, came in wrong
side and dashed the bus on the rear side; that the deceased had no
licence at the time of the accident; that the petitioners failed to file
the driving licence of the deceased and they are trying to misuse the
social welfare legislation and the insurance company of the motor
cycle was not made as party to the petition and therefore, petition is
liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and finally
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
LNA,J
i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in
death of the deceased, N.Vishal Reddy, due to rash and
negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-
11-Z-7418 by its driver ?
ii)Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation
and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the
respondents ?
iii) To what relief?
9. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants,
P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On
behalf of the TSRTC, neither any witness was examined nor was any
document marked.
10. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and
material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus and awarded
compensation of Rs.26,30,000/-, payable by the respondents 1 to 3
jointly and severally together with costs and interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel
for appellants/TSRTC, while reiterating the averments made in the
LNA,J
counter, submitted that the Tribunal erroneously awarded
compensation. He further submitted that there was no negligence on
the part of the driver of the bus; that the Tribunal ought to have
drawn an inference that there is negligence on the part of the
deceased only and therefore, TSRTC is not liable to pay the
compensation. He also submitted that Tribunal erred in considering
the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- without there
being any proof of income and finally, prayed to set aside the award
passed by the Tribunal.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that
the Tribunal had wrongly adopted the multiplier of 16 instead of 18
and the Tribunal erred in awarding consortium. He further
submitted that the appeal is devoid of any merit and the appellant
failed to make out any case warranting this Court to interfere with
the award passed by the Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss the
appeal by awarding just compensation in respect of consortium.
LNA,J
Consideration:
13. The principal contention raised by the appellants/TSRTC is
that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.26,30,000/- towards
compensation together with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum
without there being any material with regard to the alleged earnings
of the deceased as Rs.20,000/- per month; that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate the fact that the deceased died because of his own rash
and negligent driving and therefore, the appellants/ TSRTC is not
liable to pay any compensation; that there is no negligence on the
part of driver of RTC bus and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have
awarded compensation under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act for
no fault liability to a maximum amount of Rs.50,000/-; that the
deceased was having valid learners licence to drive the motor cycle
and therefore, the deceased can drive the vehicle only with the help
of valid driving licence holder and in the present case, there is no
licence holder assisted the deceased and as such, no liability could
be fastened on appellants/TSRTC; that the claim petition is filed
under Section 166 of MV Act, therefore, the claimants have to prove
LNA,J
the rash and negligence on the part of crime vehicle and in the
absence of the same, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded
compensation.
14. Perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal would show that
basing on the evidence, Ex.A2-charge sheet, the Tribunal held that
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus
belong to the appellants/TSRTC and answered the issue no.1 i.e.,
against the appellants and in favour of the claimants.
15. With regard to the driving licence of the deceased, the
Tribunal by referring to Ex.A5 observed that the deceased was
issued learner's driving licence on 10.09.2015 and the same was
valid upto 09.03.2016 and was authorized to drive LMV, MCWG.
The Tribunal further observed that since the deceased was having
learners driving licence, there can be no issue of violation of licence
in case the matter is adjudicated under Section 163-A of the MV Act,
but not under Section 166 of MV Act and thus, held that the issue of
driving licence violation does not arise.
LNA,J
16. Perusal of record would show that the claim application
petition was filed under Section 166 of MV Act, therefore,
observation of the Tribunal that if the matter is adjudicated under
Section 163-A of MV Act, there can be no issue of violation of licence
is contrary to the material on record. In considered opinion of this
Court the Tribunal erred in deciding the issue of negligence under
Section 163-A of the MV Act and awarding compensation under
Section 166 of the MV Act.
17. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh
and others 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a vehicle at the
time of accident was driven by a person having learning licence, the
insurance company would be liable to satisfy the decree. In the
present case, the deceased was having learned licence, which is
evident from Ex.A5, therefore, it cannot be held that deceased was
not having driving licence and that deceased drove the vehicle in
violation of the licence.
(2004) 3 SCC 297
LNA,J
18. In Swaran Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
"90. .... Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of
medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the
driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of
the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of
inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles.
Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to
licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground
to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third
parties.
110. (i) to (vii) xxxx
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a
person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies
would be liable to satisfy the decree."
19. In the light of above, the contention of learned counsel for
appellants/TSRTC that liability cannot be fastened on the appellants
since deceased was having only learner's driving licence and that no
licence holder assisted the deceased, is untenable.
LNA,J
20. Insofar as the assessment of the compensation is concerned,
the Tribunal has considered the earnings of the deceased at
Rs.20,000/- mainly relying on the evidence of P.W.2. Perusal of
record would show that P.W.2 deposed that deceased used to give
tuitions to his son and daughter and he used to pay Rs.15,000/- per
month to encourage the deceased and another two children joined
the tuition and that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- from
tuitions. In cross-examination, P.w.2 categorically admitted that no
documents were filed to show that his children are 6 and 9 years old
and further he did not show the monthly payments made to the
deceased in his income tax returns.
21. It is pertinent to mention that Tribunal specifically observed
that the evidence of P.W.2 seems to be doubtful, however, on bona
fide belief that P.W.2 indeed paid Rs.15,000/- per month for
tuitions to his children and two more children paid Rs.5,000/-, the
Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.20,000/-. In considered opinion of this Court, in the absence of
any material in support of evidence of P.W.2 and further, having
LNA,J
observed that evidence of P.W.2 is doubtful, the Tribunal erred in
considering the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-.
22. A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in B.Ramulamma v
Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore and another 2, in
similar circumstances, i.e., while adjudicating the compensation in
support of Engineering student, has taken monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.12,000/- and deducted 10% of income for each
uncompleted year. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in
MACMA No.3353 of 2014 by relying on the decision of
B.Ramulamma (supra), had fixed the monthly income of the
deceased therein at Rs.15,000/- considering the year of accident, vide
judgment dated 09.08.2023.
23. In considered opinion of this Court, the facts of the above
decision and the present case are similar and therefore, this Court is
inclined to rely on the above decision and accordingly, fixes the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. Admittedly, the
2009 SCC Online AP 565
LNA,J
deceased was a first year engineering student, thus, deceased was to
complete three more years. Therefore, 10% of monthly income of the
deceased for uncompleted three years has to be deducted as per the
decision of Division Bench of this Court, which comes to
Rs.10,500/- (Rs.15,000/- - Rs.4,500/-). If 40% of the income is added
to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects as per
the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 3 , the total income of the
deceased would be Rs.14,700/- (Rs.10,500/- + Rs.4200/-) per month.
24. As per the Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4
(supra), since the deceased was bachelor, 50% of the income has to
be deducted towards his personal expenses and therefore, the loss of
contribution to the dependants comes to Rs.7,350/- (50% of
Rs.14,700/-) per month and Rs.88,200/- per annum (Rs.7,350/- ×
12), and after applying the relevant multiplier '18' as per Sarla
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
LNA,J
Verma's case (supra), the loss of source of income comes to
Rs.15,87,600/- (Rs.88,200/- × 18).
25. As per the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), petitioners are
entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium, and Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
Conclusion:
26. In view of the above, the compensation amount is recalculated
as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Loss of source of income Rs.15,87,600/-
2 Consortium Rs. 80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 2)
3 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation to be paid: Rs.16,97,600/-
27. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed reducing the
compensation amount from Rs.26,30,000/- to Rs.16,97,600/- with
interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of the claim
LNA,J
petition till the date of realization. The appellants/TSRTC herein are
directed to pay the said compensation amount within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents
1 and 2 herein/claimants are entitled to the apportionment and
withdrawal of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. There shall
be no order as to costs.
28. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 18.04.2024
kkm
