Telangana High Court
Telangana State Road Transport ... vs M Laxmi Kantham on 16 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1429 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2018 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.985 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal- cum - XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) , the Respondents-TSRTC filed
the present Appeal seeking to allow the appeal by setting aside the
order of the learned Tribunal.
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 claim petitioners,
who are the parents of one Ms.M.Surekha, hereinafter be referred
as 'the deceased', filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-
for the death of their daughter, who died in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 18.12.2015. It is stated by the claim
petitioners that on 18.12.2015 at about 11.30 AM, when the
deceased-Surekha had proceeded on her Hero Honda Activa
Scooter bearing No.AP-29-AV-7484 and when reached near
Laxminarasimha Motor Driving School, Ramanthapur, one RTC
Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7795 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed the scooter of the deceased from its
MGP,J
behind, due to which the deceased sustained head injury and died
on the spot. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Gandhi
Medical Hospital and post mortem examination was conducted on
the dead body of the deceased. Based on a complaint, the Police,
Uppal Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.1133 of 2015
under Section 304A IPC against the driver of the RTC bus. It is
stated by the claim petitioners that the deceased was aged 24 years
by the date of accident and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by
working as Financial Consultant in LICHFL, a private company
and the petitioners, being the parents of the deceased, lost love
and affection and protection in their old age due to the death of the
deceased. They also stated that due to the death of the deceased,
they lost their financial support and therefore, filed claim petition
seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from Respondent Nos.1
& 2 who are the Managing Director, TSRTC and Depot Manager of
the crime vehicle.
4. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly filed their counter denying all
the material allegations made in the claim petition, including age,
avocation and income of the deceased. They stated that the alleged
accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased and
there was no negligence on part of the driver of the RTC bus. They
further stated that when the alleged crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus
MGP,J
was moving ahead, the deceased dashed against a six seater Auto
and fell on the backside of the Bus and upon hearing the noise, the
bus driver got down from the bus. As the deceased did not follow
the traffic rules, she dashed the auto and fell on the road. It is
further contended by the respondents that the claim petitioners did
not produce the insurance coverage of two wheeler and also did not
produce any document to show that the scooter of the deceased
was in road worthy condition and that the compensation claimed is
excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in
death of the deceased M.Surekha due to rash and
negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 10Z 7795 by
its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation?
If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the
respondents?
3. To what relief?
6. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and
Exs.A1 to A7, C1 & C2 were marked. On behalf of the
respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
MGP,J
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence
and documents available on record, had partly allowed the claim
petition of the petitioners by awarding compensation of
Rs.15,16,851/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of the petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same,
the appellants/RTC preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for
Appellants-RTC as well as learned counsel for the respondents/
claim petitioners. Perused the record.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellants/RTC is
that the Tribunal erred in attributing negligence on part of the
driver of RTC bus Bearing No.AP 10Z 7795, erred in not dismissing
the claim petition for non-joinder of owner and insurer of Hero
Honda Activa Scooter bearing No.AP 29 AV 7484 as necessary
parties to the claim petition, erred in taking the income of the
deceased, and also awarding amount towards consortium though
the deceased is unmarried and that granting interest @ 9% per
annum on the awarded compensation.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents/claim petitioners contended that the learned
Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents
MGP,J
available on record, has awarded reasonable compensation for
which interference of this Court is not necessary.
11. Now the point that arise for determination is,
Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers
from any irregularity?
POINT:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
available on record. The primary contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants/RTC is that there is no negligence on part of the
driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 10Z 7795 for the alleged
accident. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer Ex.A1-FIR which
shows that Uppal police registered a case in Crime No.1133 of
2015 under Section 304A IPC for the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the RTC Bus which came in a high speed and dashed
the motorcycle of the deceased and the police, after conducting
thorough investigation, laid charge sheet under Ex.A5 showing the
driver of the said RTC Bus responsible for occurrence of the
accident. Moreover, the evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness to
the accident, also supports the case of the petitioners that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the RTC bus which resulted in spot death of the deceased.
Therefore, the evidence of PW1 corroborated with the evidence of
MGP,J
PW2 along with Exs.A1 & A5 shows that the driver of the RTC bus
is responsible for the alleged accident. As there is no negligence on
part of the driver of the motorcycle, the owner and insurer of the
said motorcycle are not made as parties to the petition. Hence, the
contention of the appellant that there is no negligence on part of
the driver of the RTC Bus and that the tribunal failed to consider
the owner and insurer of motor cycle as necessary parties to the
petition, is unsustainable. The appellant-RTC cannot escape their
liability for mere non-examination of the insurer and owner of the
motorcycle. Moreover, the appellant-RTC except making
allegations that the driver of the motorcycle is responsible for the
accident, had not adduced any evidence to support their version.
The other contention made by the learned counsel for appellants is
with regard to income of the deceased. In this regard, it is
pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW3, who is an employee of the
company where the deceased used to work as Financial Consultant
from 10.10.2011. He stated that the deceased's pay was
Rs.12,000/- as on 01.04.2015 and she used to get incentives as
per her performance which may vary from time to time and
furnished Exs.C1 & C2- payslips of the deceased for the months of
April and November 2015. Nothing worthy was elicited by the
respondents-TSRTC from the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 3.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal by considering Ex.C2-salary slip of
MGP,J
the deceased, fixed the monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.11,272/- per month and upon addition of future prospects and
relevant multiplier, had awarded reasonable compensation. This
Court do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings of
the learned Tribunal which are in proper perspective. Hence, the
Appeal is devoid of merits and substance and is liable to be
dismissed.
13. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants TSRTC that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding
consortium to the claim petitioners as the deceased is a bachelor.
In this regard, it is pertinent to make a mention that though the
learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss
of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses, but as the deceased violated the
provisions of Motor vehicles act for not wearing helmet and not
carrying driving license, the learned Tribunal deducted 20% of
compensation arrived at towards the said negligence which this
Court feels that it is balanced towards the amount granted under
other heads.
14. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned,
this Court taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and
MGP,J
others 1 reduces the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. Except the
above finding, the findings in respect of all other aspects, as
awarded by the Tribunal, shall remain the same.
15. In the result, the MACMA is partly allowed by reducing the
rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum. There
shall be no order as to costs.
16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.16.02.2024
ysk
1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
