Telangana High Court
Kethavath Devula And Anr vs The Ts Road Transport Corporation on 12 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
1957 of 2017
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated
01.03.2017 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition
No.305 of 2014 by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VIII Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, (for short "the
Tribunal"), the appellants-petitioners preferred the present
Appeal praying this Court seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the
parties will be referred to as per their array before the
Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioners No.1 and 2 filed a petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the learned Tribunal,
claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of
one Kethavath Narsimha Naik (hereinafter referred to as
'the deceased'), petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers,
who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on
23.11.2013.
04. According to the petitioners, on 23.11.2013 at
about 11:30 AM., the deceased was proceeding on
Motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 DU 4808 from Budwell in
order to go to Kismathpur at Hyderabad, while the
deceased was proceeding on the way near Kistammagutta
within the limits of Budwel, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11
Z 3964 driven by its driver in high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner came in opposite direction from
Kismathpur to Budwel side, came in a wrong route while
overtaking another vehicle and dashed against the bike of
the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained fatal
injuries and died on the spot. A case in Crime No.952 of
2013 by the Police, Rajendranagar, and took up
investigation and after completing the investigation, the
Police laid charge sheet against the driver of the RTC bus
under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
05. As per the petitioners, the deceased was aged
about 22 years at the time of accident and he completed
M.A., B.Ed., and preparing for Group-I Examination at
Hyderabad and also running private tuitions to school
students and also giving lectures to the students and
earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributed the same
to the petitioners. Due to sudden death of the deceased,
the petitioners lost their beloved younger brother and
suffered mental agony.
06. Respondent filed counter denying rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the RTC bus and the
manner of occurrence of the accident. Further, the age,
avocation was also denied. It is contended that the
petitioners are not legal heirs of the deceased. It is further
contended that the road at scene of offence is curve zigzag
and narrow, the deceased unable to control his vehicle,
dashed to the RTC bus and that there was negligence on
the part of the deceased and that the compensation
claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss
the petition.
07. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues were settled:
i. Whether the accident had occurred on
23.11.2013 at 11:00 AM., at Kistamma Gutta near Budwel
Village on Budwel to Kismathpur road at Hyderabad, due
to rash and negligent driving by the driver of RTC bus
bearing No. AP 11 Z 3964 ?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation amount, if so, to what amount ?
iii. To what relief ?
08. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioners got
examined petitioner No.1 as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1
to A21. Ex.C1 and C2 are also marked. No oral or
documentary was adduced by respondent.
09. Considering the claim of the petitioners and
counter filed by respondent and on evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal
partly allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding
a total compensation of Rs.12,01,400/- along with interest
@ 9 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization, to be deposited by respondent.
10. Challenging the quantum of compensation,
appellants-petitioners have filed this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation amount.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
appellants-petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent. Perused the material
available on record.
12. The main contention of the learned counsel for
appellants-petitioners is that though the appellants proved
their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying
on the documents under Exs.A1 to A2, the learned
Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously
awarded meager amount towards compensation and that
the learned Tribunal has not awarded future prospects and
prayed to enhance the compensation amount.
13. On the other hand, the learned Standing
Counsel for respondent-RTC has contended that the
learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation
and the same needs no interference by this Court.
14. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the appellants-petitioners are entitled
for enhancement of compensation amount in addition
to the compensation amount granted vide Order and
Decree dated 01.03.2017 passed in Motor Vehicle
Original Petition No.305 of 2014 by the learned
Tribunal?
P O I N T:
15. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents available on record.
16. PW1 who is the elder brother of the deceased
reiterated the contents of the claim application and got
marked Ex.A1 to A21 and as he is not an eyewitness to the
accident, he got examined PW2 who is eyewitness to the
accident who deposed that he saw the offending vehicle
RTC bus came at high speed in rash and negligent manner
and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to which
the deceased died on the spot and PW2 gave information to
the Police. It is further ascertained from PW2 that there
was a small turning at scene of offence and if the vehicle
come slowly there may not be any unforeseen incident.
Even though PW1 and PW2 are cross-examined at length,
nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
17. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also
relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to
A21. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR and A4-Crime details form
discloses that based on a complaint, a case in Crime
No.952 of 2013 was registered by Police, Rajendranagar
and they took up investigation and laid Ex.A5-Charge
sheet filed against the driver of the RTC bus. Ex.A2-
Postmortem examination report shows that the deceased
died in the road traffic accident. Ex.A3-Motor Vehicle
Inspector Report shows that there was no mechanical
defect in the RTC bus.
18. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW2
eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary
evidence available on record, held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
RTC Bus. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on
appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the
only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the
quantum of compensation.
19. Petitioners have also got examined PW3 is the
Vice-Principal, Headmaster of the School who deposed that
the deceased was being paid Rs.10,800/- per month in the
year 2013 and issued Ex.A20-Salary Certificate and he also
produced Ex.C1-Attendance register and Ex.C2-
Acquittance register. Ex.A6 to A19 and A21 are the
certificates of the deceased pertaining to educational
qualifications, scholarship, karate.
20. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the
age of the deceased as 23 years as per Ex.A6-SSC
certificate and considering the evidence of PW3
coupled with Ex.A20-Salary certificate, has taken
income at the rate of Rs.10,800/- per month.
Hence, after considering the age, educational
qualifications and avocation of the deceased, the
learned Tribunal awarded Rs.12,01,400/-.
However, as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellants, the learned Tribunal
failed to award future prospects and other
conventional heads. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to interfere with the said finding of the
Tribunal. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others 1 40% i.e., Rs.4,320/- towards
future prospects can duly be added thereto, which comes
to Rs.15,120/- (Rs.10,800/- + Rs.4,320/-). Hence, this
Court is inclined to fix the annual income of the
deceased at Rs.1,81,440/- (Rs.15,120x12). Since
the deceased was a bachelor, after deducting half of the
income (Rs.90,720/-) towards personal expenses of the
deceased, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another 2, the net annual contribution
to the family comes to Rs.90,720/- (Rs.1,81,440/- -
Rs.90,720/-).
1 2017 ACJ 2700
2 2009 (6) SCC 121
21. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 23
years at the time of fatal accident. Therefore, as per the
decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla
Varma (supra), the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Thus,
applying the multiplier '18' to the annual loss of
dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.90,720/-, the
total loss of dependency comes to Rs.16,32,960/-
(Rs.90,720/- x 18). In addition to that, the petitioners are
entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads
(Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Thus, in all,
the petitioners are entitled to compensation of
Rs.16,65,960/-.
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.12,01,400/- is without
including future prospects and conventional heads as per
the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, therefore,
the future prospects and conventional head are added and
the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.16,65,960/-.
The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at
the rate of 7.5 percent per annum. The enhanced
compensation amount shall be deposited by respondent
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners
are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any
security.
23. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.12,01,400/- to Rs.16,65,960/-. There shall be no order
as to costs.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 12-FEB-2024
KHRM
