Telangana High Court

G.Manjula Reddy vs The Ap State Road Transport Corporation on 13 February, 2024

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
                                 [




                 M.A.C.M.A.No.2779 of 2012
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellants-claimants

aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012 passed in

MVOP No.598 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal cum the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal).

2. The claimants are the wife and mother of the deceased

late G. Srinivas Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident. The

claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the

death of the deceased. The contention of the claimants was that the

deceased was aged 41 years, he was a A1 Class Contractor and was

earning Rs.26,000/- per month by the date of the accident. He was

an income tax assessee and submitting his returns to the Income

Tax Department. On 22.08.2010 between 3.00 PM to 3.30 PM,

while the deceased was proceeding on his Hero Honda Passion

Plus Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TS 29 BH 1617 from

Dr.GRR,J

Cherlapally to Dilsukhnagar through Tarnaka and when reached

near HMT Bearings Company, Moulali, one APSRTC Bus bearing

No.AP 10 Z 937 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

with high speed, hit the motor cycle of the deceased from its

behind, due to which he fell down and the bus ran over the head of

the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. The police of

Malkajgiri P.S., registered a case in Crime No.331 of 2010 for the

offence under Section 304A IPC against the driver of the RTC bus.

The petitioners claimed compensation from the respondents 1 and

2, the Managing Director and the Depot Manager of APSRTC,

Kushaiguda Bus Depot.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counter calling for strict

proof of the petition averments. They contended that the claim of

the claimants for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- was highly

excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate and the same was not

in accordance with the norms and settled precedents.

4. The Tribunal framed the issues and caused enquiry.

5. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got

examined an eye witness to the accident as PW.2 and got marked

Dr.GRR,J

Exs.A1 to A22 in support of her contention. The respondent Nos.1

and 2 failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal held that the accident took place solely on

account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC

bus and held the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally

liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. With regard to the

quantum of compensation though the claimants filed income tax

returns for the annual years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, marked

under Exs.A15 and A16 and the copy of the TDS certificates dated

18.02.2008, marked under Ex.A17 and the copies of the income tax

returns for the annual years 2009-2010 marked under Ex.A20, the

income tax returns for the annual year 2007-2008 marked as

Ex.A21 and the income tax returns for the annual year 2008-2009

marked under Ex.A22, had not considered the same as neither the

Auditor or any Accountant of the deceased, or any person

associated with the business and income returns of the deceased

was examined, and considered the monthly income of the deceased

as Rs.10,000/- and the annual income as Rs.1,20,000/- and

Dr.GRR,J

deducted 1/3rd of his income towards his personal and living

expenses and determined the annual contribution to his family as

Rs.80,000/-. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as

41 years as per his driving licence marked under Ex.A19 and

applied multiplier '14' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1 and

calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.11,20,000/-. The Tribunal

awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the claimant

No.1, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards

funeral expenses. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.11,40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum to the claimants.

7. Aggrieved by the said award and decree dated

18.01.2012, the claimants preferred this appeal contending that the

Tribunal grossly erred in taking the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.26,000/- by discarding

Exs.A11 to A22 by placing reliance on the judgment reported

in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohd. Khaja

(2009) 6 SCC 121

Dr.GRR,J

Rasool Sayyed and Mohd. Khajamain Shaikh 2 . The said

judgment pertained to medical certificates and medical bills which

were required to be proved by examining the doctor, who issued

the same, but in the instant case, the income tax returns and other

documents marked as Ex.A11 to A22 were issued by the Income

Tax Department which were not required to be proved by

examining any witness since there was no dispute by the

respondents with regard to the above said documents. The

deceased was a Class-V contractor of Roads and Buildings. His

income tax returns would clearly establish that he was having a

monthly income of Rs.26,000/- as such, the court ought to have

awarded the compensation keeping in view the future prospects.

The Tribunal awarded meager amounts towards loss of estate and

consortium and prayed to allow the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents - TSRTC.

2003 (5) ALD 162

Dr.GRR,J

9. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anjali and Others v.

Lokendra Rathod and others 3, wherein it was held that:

9. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed grave error while estimating the deceased's income by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the Deceased. The appellants had filed the Income Tax Return (2009-2010) of the deceased, which reflects the deceased's annual income to be Rs.1,18,261/-, approx. Rs.9,855/-

per month. This Court in Malarvizhi & Ors.

(Supra) has reaffirmed that the Income Tax Return is a statutory document on which reliance be placed, where available, for computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi (Supra), this Court has laid as under:

"10. ...We are in agreement with the High Court that the determination must proceed on the basis of the income tax return, where available. The income tax return is a statutory document on which reliance may be placed to

2023 (1) ALD 107 SC

Dr.GRR,J

determine the annual income of the deceased."

10. On a perusal of the record, it would disclose that the

claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and filed the documents

marked under Exs.A1 to A22. The documents marked under

Exs.A11 to A22 would disclose that the deceased was a Class-V

contractor of Roads and Buildings and he was submitting his

income tax returns regularly to the department. The claimants filed

income tax returns for the annual year 2002-2003 under Ex.A15,

for the annual year 2003-2004 under Ex.A16, for the annual year

2007-2008 under EX.A21, for the annual year 2008-2009 under

Ex.A22 and for the annual year 2009-2010 under Ex.A20. The

Tribunal, while considering these documents observed that they

bear the stamp of the Income Tax Department. But, considering

that no Auditor or any other person like Accountant associated

with the business of the deceased was examined, failed to take

them into consideration.

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied by the

learned counsel for the claimants in Anjali and Others v.

Dr.GRR,J

Lokendra Rathod and others (3 supra) relying upon its earlier

judgment in Malaarvizihi and others v. United Indian Insurance

Co. Ltd. and others 4 observed that the income tax returns are

statutory documents and reliance shall be placed upon the same

wherever they were available for computation of annual income of

the deceased. As such, the Tribunal ought to have considered the

income tax returns filed by the claimants for determining the

annual income of the deceased. The date of accident was on

22.08.2010. The income tax returns for the annual year 2009-2010

marked under Ex.A20 would disclose that the deceased had shown

a gross total income of Rs.3,12,845/- per annum and for the annual

year 2008-2009 marked under Ex.A22, he had shown his income

as Rs.4,53,981/- and for the annual year 2007-2008 marked under

Ex.A21, the gross total income was shown as Rs.1,98,500/-. As

such, his average income can be taken as Rs.3,21,775/-.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance

Company v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 5 held that while determining

the income of the deceased, an additional income has to be added

2020 (1) ALD 109 SC

2017 (16) SCC 680

Dr.GRR,J

towards future prospects even in the case of the deceased, who

were self employed or on a fixed salary, towards their future

prospects. Hence, considering the age of the deceased as 41 years,

an addition of 25% has to be added towards future prospects. As

such, the income of the deceased including his future prospects for

the purpose of calculation can be taken as Rs.4,02,219/- per annum

(Rs.3,21,775/- + Rs.80,444/- (25% of Rs.3,21,775/-)). After

deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards his personal

expenses, his contribution to his family can be taken as

Rs.2,68,146/- per annum (Rs.4,02,219/- minus Rs.1,34,073/- (1/3rd

of Rs.4,02,219/-)). Hence, the loss of dependency can be

calculated as Rs.2,68,146/- x 14 = 37,54,044/-.

13. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.

(5 supra), both the claimants are also entitled for the loss of

consortium with an enhancement @10% in a span of 3 years. As

such, both the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.44,000/-

each towards loss of consortium. The claimants are also entitled to

loss of estate and funeral expenses for an amount of Rs.16,500/-

Dr.GRR,J

each with an increment of 10% for every three years. As such, the

compensation entitled by the claimants under various heads is as

follows:

          Loss of dependency           :Rs.37,54,044/-
          Spousal consortium           :Rs.     44,000/-
          Filial consortium            :Rs.     44,000/-
          Loss of estate               :Rs.     16,500/-
          Funeral expenses             :Rs.     16,500/-
                                -------------------------------
             Total                      Rs.38,75,044/-
                                -------------------------------

14. Though the claimants claimed an amount of

Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation, as there is no restriction that

the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claim amount

as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa v.

Gurudayal Singh and Others 6 and Ramla and others v.

National Insurance Company Limited and others 7 , it is

considered fit to enhance the compensation from Rs.11,40,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.38,75,044/- with interest @ 7.5 %

per annum on the enhanced amount.

2003 (2) SCC 274

2019 ACJ 559

Dr.GRR,J