Telangana High Court
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs S.Swapna on 5 February, 2024
• THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
•
• M.A.C.M.A.No.1950 of 2018
• AND
• CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.18 of 2022
•
• COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2017 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.2062 of 2015, on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,
(for short, 'the Tribunal'), M.A.C.M.A.1950 of 2018 is filed by the
Appellants/respondents in O.P. seeking to allow the Appeal by
setting aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Also,
aggrieved by the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal,
the petitioners in O.P. filed the Cross Objections petition No.18
of 2022 seeking the Court to award the compensation as
claimed by the cross-objectors by dismissing M.A.C.M.A.1950 of
2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners, who
are the wife and mother of deceased-S.Laxmipathi, filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
MGP,J
Macma.1950 of 2018 & X.obj.18 of 2022
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in
a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.03.2014. It is
stated by the petitioners that on 27.03.2014, at about 6.30
A.M., while the deceased was proceeding as a driver in a car
bearing No.AP 09 BF 2877 from Hyderabad to Vijayawada and
when reached Gosala Village, Bandar Road near Lazza Ice
Cream Company, at that time, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z
5896 ,coming from Kankipadu, came in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed and dashed the deceased. As a result,
the deceased sustained grievous injures and died on the spot.
Based on a complaint, P.S., Penamaluru registered a case in
Crime No.144 of 2014 under Section 304A and 337 IPC against
the driver of RTC Bus. As stated by the petitioners, the
deceased was working as a driver and used to earn Rs.14,000/-
per month. Due to the said accident, they are finding it very
difficult to eke out their livelihood and hence filed a claim
application claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- along with
interests and costs. As the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus, the
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly liable to pay compensation to
the petitioners.
MGP,J
Macma.1950 of 2018 & X.obj.18 of 2022
4. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed their counter denying the
averments made in the claim application including, the manner
of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC
Bus Bearing No.AP 11Z 5896, involvement of RTC Bus, age,
occupation and income of the deceased and also stated that on
27.03.2014 at 6.40 hours, the driver of the RTC bus had
proceeded very slowly due to ditches on the road and that he
observed a car coming in opposite direction in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and on seeing the ditches on
the road, he took his car to right side. Observing the same, the
driver of the RTC bus stopped the vehicle. But, the deceased
dashed the stationed bus and sustained injuries. Therefore, the
driver of the car was alone responsible for the said accident and
hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation and that the
compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to
dismiss the same.
5. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner No.1 was examined as
PW1 and also got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the
accident and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf.
6. On behalf of respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1
to B9 are marked.
MGP,J
Macma.1950 of 2018 & X.obj.18 of 2022
7. After considering the evidence adduced on both sides and
documents marked, the learned Tribunal had taken 50:50 ratio
of contributory negligence towards both the parties and awarded
compensation of Rs.7,56,800/- each to both the parties totaling
to Rs.15,13,600/-. Aggrieved by the same, M.A.C.M.A.1950 of
2018 is filed by respondents in O.P. and petitioners in O.P. filed
the Cross Objections petition.
8. Heard the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for
appellants-RTC as well as the learned counsel for the
Respondents-petitioners.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants -
RTC is that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the said RTC bus. He also contended that the Tribunal ought
to have dismissed OP on the ground of non-joinder of owner and
insurer of the subject car and also stated that the accident
occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased
and hence, the driver of the RTC bus is not responsible for the
same and that the compensation and rate of interest awarded
by the Tribunal is excess and hence prayed to set-aside the
same by allowing the appeal.
MGP,J
Macma.1950 of 2018 & X.obj.18 of 2022
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/
cross-objectors contended that the learned Tribunal ought to
have fixed the entire liability upon RTC and also stated that the
Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as
Rs.8,000/- per month even though there is sufficient evidence
that he was being paid an amount of Rs.14,000/- per month
which was exhibited through Ex.A5-Salary certificate and that
the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum
instead of 6% and prayed to allow the cross-objections petition.
11. Now the point that emerge for consideration is,
Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
Point:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents filed by both sides. Petitioner No.1, who is the wife
of the deceased, was examined as PW1 and reiterated the
contents made in the claim application and also deposed about
the manner of accident. She also stated that the daughter of
PW2-owner of the car, gave complaint to police stating that they
met with an accident which occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of RTC bus and sustained injuries in the
MGP,J
Macma.1950 of 2018 & X.obj.18 of 2022
said accident. Based on the same, the Police filed charge sheet
against the driver of the RTC bus. PW2, who is an eye witness
to the accident, also stated that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. In
support of her contention, PW1 filed Ex.A1-Certifed copy of FIR,
Ex.A2- Certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3- Certified Copy of
inquest report, Ex.A4- Certified copy of Post Mortem
Examination report, Ex.A5-Salary certificate of the deceased
and Ex.A6-Driving license.
13. It is also pertinent to note that RW1, who is the driver of
the RTC Bus, admitted that charge sheet was filed against him.
He also stated that he gave complaint under Ex.B1 to police
against the driver of the car. He also filed Exs.B8 & B9, the
photograph and the newspaper cutting showing the accident
spot.
14. Therefore, from the evidence of RW1 coupled with Exs.B8
& B9, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that there was
contributory negligence on part of driver of the car also and
hence, taken 50:50 ratio of contributory negligence on part of
both the driver of the bus as well as driver of the car.
MGP,J
Macma.1950 of 2018 & X.obj.18 of 2022
15. This Court, having gone through the entire evidence and
documents marked, is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal
was right in taking 50:50 ratio of contributory negligence
towards both the parties.
16. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,
even though Ex.A5-Salary Certificate was filed evidencing the
income of the deceased, but the learned Tribunal has taken the
income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month which this
Court considers meager and the same needs interference.
Hence, this Court, upon taking into consideration the year of
accident, occupation of the deceased and perusing Ex.A5-Salary
Certificate, considers desirable to fix the monthly income of the
deceased @ Rs.10,000/- per month. If 40% is added towards
future aspects to the established income as per the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, the future monthly
income of the deceased comes to Rs.14,000/-. If 1/3rd of the
income is deducted for personal and living expenses of the
deceased as the number of dependants are two, then the net
monthly income comes to Rs.9,333/- (Rs.14,000-Rs.4,667) and
the annual income comes to Rs.1,11,996/-. As the age of the
2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
Macma.1950 of 2018 & X.obj.18 of 2022
deceased is 32 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate
multiplier is '16' as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2
which comes to Rs.17,91,936/-. That apart, the Tribunal had
also granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection,
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards
transportation and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses. Hence,
the total loss of income incurred by the respondents comes to
Rs.18,71,936/-. As the Tribunal had taken 50:50 ratio of
contributory negligence, the respondents/cross-objectors are
liable to be paid only 50% of the compensation amount which
comes Rs.9,35,968/-.
17. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.1950 of 2018 filed by
Appellant/RTC is dismissed and the Cross Objections Petition
No.18 of 2022 filed by the respondents in M.A.C.M.A.1950 of
2018 is partly allowed by enhancing the 50% compensation
amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,56,800/- to
Rs.9,35,968/-.
18. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is
concerned, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
Macma.1950 of 2018 & X.obj.18 of 2022
in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3 the rate of
interest is hereby enhanced to 7.5% per annum from 6% on the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition
till the date of realization. The Appellants/Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 in O.P. are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced
compensation within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the cross-
objectors are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing
any security as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.05.02.2024
ysk
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
