Telangana High Court
Apsrtc Now Tsrtc, vs U Mallamma on 29 February, 2024
• THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
• M.A.C.M.A.No.1225 of 2018
• AND
• CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.22 of 2022
•
• COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2015 passed in
O.P.No.254 of 2013, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda,
(for short, 'the Tribunal'), M.A.C.M.A.1225 of 2018 is filed by the
Respondents/TSRTC in O.P. seeking to allow the Appeal by setting
aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Also, being not
satisfied with the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal,
the Petitioner in O.P. filed Cross Objections No.22 of 2022 seeking
for enhancement of compensation.
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 petitioner, who is
the wife of deceased-Pitchaiah, filed a petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for
the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident that occurred
on 20.02.2012 at 8.15p.m. at Shettipalem bus stage. It is stated
by the petitioner that on 20.02.2012, when the deceased, along
MGP,J
MACMA.1225 of 2018 and
X-obj.22 of 2022
with others, went to Annareddygudem Village to attend the death
ceremony of their relatives in an Auto bearing No.AP-24-TA-3748
and while returning in the same Auto and when they reached
Shettipalem bus-stage at about 8.15 PM, one RTC Bus bearing
No.AP-10Z-7903 coming from Miryalaguda to go to Suryapet, came
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the opposite coming
vehicle while turning towards Suryapet road. As a result, the
deceased and other passengers in the Auto sustained injuries. As
the deceased sustained multiple injuries, he was shifted to
Hyderabad for better treatment and on the way, he died. As per
the report given by Sri K.Saidulu, one of the injured, the Police of
Vemulapally Police Station registered a case in Crime No.19 of
2012 under Section 337 IPC initially and subsequently after the
death of the deceased, included Section 304-A IPC, conducted
investigation and laid charge sheet against the driver of the RTC
Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7903. As stated by the petitioner, the
deceased is an agriculturist and is having property of Ac.2.37
guntas besides doing dairy business and used to earn Rs.10,000/-
per month. As the petitioner lost her breadwinner, as such, she
filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the
Respondent Nos.1 & 2, being the General Manager and Depot
Manager of TSRTC.
MGP,J
MACMA.1225 of 2018 and
X-obj.22 of 2022
4. Respondent No.1 filed counter and denied the averments
made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus Bearing No.AP-10Z-
7903, involvement of RTC Bus, age, occupation and income of the
deceased and also contended that as the Auto was also involved in
the accident, the driver, owner and insurance company should also
be added as necessary parties to the petition and that the
compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to
dismiss the same. Respondent No.2 adopted the counter filed by
Respondent No.1 by filing a memo.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:-
i. Whether the deceased died in the accident due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC
Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7903?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation?
If so, what amount and from whom?
iii. To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner herself was examined as
PW1 and also got examined PW2, who is one of the injured
traveling in the said Auto and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 on their
behalf.
MGP,J
MACMA.1225 of 2018 and
X-obj.22 of 2022
7. On behalf of respondents, none of the witnesses were
examined and no documents were marked.
8. After considering the evidence and documents marked, the
learned Tribunal had partly allowed the petition by awarding
compensation of Rs.4,96,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Aggrieved by the same,
the respondents in O.P. filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1225 of 2018 and the
claim petitioner filed Cross Objections petition No.22 of 2022.
9. Heard the submission made by the learned Standing
Counsel for Appellants-TSRTC as well as the learned counsel for
the Respondent/petitioner in O.P./Cross-objector.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants -
TSRTC is that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7903. He also contended that the
Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition on the ground
of non-joinder of owner and insurer of Auto bearing No.AP-24TA-
3748 as necessary parties to the petition. He also contended that
the Tribunal erred in awarding excess compensation towards
conventional heads viz., loss of consortium, funeral expenses
without following the principles established under law.
MGP,J
MACMA.1225 of 2018 and
X-obj.22 of 2022
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/cross-
objector contended that though the petitioner had established her
case by cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon
documents marked under Exs.A1 to A10, but the learned Tribunal,
without considering the same, had awarded meager amount
towards the income of the deceased. He also contended that the
learned Tribunal erred in not granting future prospects to the
deceased and hence prayed to allow the cross-objection petition by
enhancing the compensation.
12. Now the points that emerge for consideration is,
(i) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
(i) Whether the cross-objector is entitled for enhancement of
compensation?
Points-
13. 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. As she is not an eye witness to the incident, she got
examined PW2, who is one of the injured and also an eye witness
for the alleged accident. He deposed that on 20.02.2012, when
MGP,J
MACMA.1225 of 2018 and
X-obj.22 of 2022
their Auto reached Shettipalem Bus stage, one RTC Bus coming
from Miryalaguda came in a high speed and dashed the Auto. As
such, they all sustained injuries. Further, the place of accident as
per Ex.A2, shows that there are blood stains on the north side of
the road and the Auto was stationed beside the road with damage
on the front portion. Also as per the sketch appended to Ex.A1, it
is observed that there are blood stains on the right side of the road
towards Nalgonda. From the above, it is clear that the Bus,
instead of going on the left side of the road to take turn to go to
Bheemaram road, gone to the extreme right and dashed the auto
which resulted in the accident and it is made clear that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the RTC bus. Moreover Ex.A7-Charge sheet clearly holds
that the driver of the RTC Bus was responsible for the alleged
accident.
14. From the evidence of PWs 1 & 2, coupled with the
documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A10, it is clear that there is
contributory negligence on part of the driver of the RTC Bus which
resulted in the alleged accident and caused death of the deceased.
Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing counsel for
appellants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Auto is unsustainable and as there is no
MGP,J
MACMA.1225 of 2018 and
X-obj.22 of 2022
contribution on part of the driver of the Auto in the alleged
accident. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal.
15. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for appellants
that the learned Tribunal awarded excess amount under
conventional heads without following the reasonable figures
mentioned by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Co.Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & Ors. 1. In this regard, it is pertinent to
mention that as judgment cited supra, the amounts granted under
various conventional heads are Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral expenses, which in total comes to Rs.70,000/- (which
carries 10% enhancement for every three years). But the learned
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- under conventional
heads which is excess. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere
with the finding arrived by the learned Tribunal in respect of
conventional heads and hereby reduces the amount towards
conventional heads from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.70,000/-.
16. So far as cross-objection petition filed by the petitioner is
concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that though the petitioner had established her case by
2017(6)ALD170(SC)
MGP,J
MACMA.1225 of 2018 and
X-obj.22 of 2022
filing pattedar pass book showing that the deceased was having
agricultural land, but the learned Tribunal, without considering
the same, had awarded meager amount towards the income of the
deceased. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the
petitioner, being the owner of more than one Acre, can cultivate
her land even after the death of the deceased. Moreover, the
petitioner had not filed any evidence to show that the deceased is
having dairy business. Hence, the Tribunal, taking into
consideration the income of an agricultural coolie, had fixed the
income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- which this Court finds
reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.
17. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for cross-
objector that the learned Tribunal erred in not granting future
prospects to the deceased. This Court, upon considering the
evidence and documents available on record, feels reasonable to
grant future prospects towards the death of the deceased and
hereby calculate the compensation as, the monthly income of the
deceased as fixed by the Tribunal is Rs.4,000/-. As the age of the
appellant at the time of accident was 48 years, he is entitled for
addition of 25% towards future prospects to the established
income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
MGP,J
MACMA.1225 of 2018 and
X-obj.22 of 2022
others 2. Hence, the future monthly income of the deceased comes
to Rs.5,000/-. So the yearly income comes to Rs.60,000/-. Since
the claim petitioner alone is depending on the deceased, if 1/3rd
amount is deducted towards his personal and living expenses, the
total annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.40,000/-. Since
the deceased was 48 years old at the time of the accident, the
appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the guidelines laid down by the
Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3.
Therefore, the total loss of income due to the death of the deceased
comes to Rs.5,20,000/-. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal
granted an amount of Rs.80,000/- under conventional charges
which this Court interfered with the said finding and hereby
reduced the same from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.70,000/- as per
Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (cited supra) .
Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.5,90,000/-.
18. In the result, MACMA.NO.1225 of 2018 filed by TSRTC is
party allowed by reducing the amount awarded under conventional
heads from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.70,000/- and the Cross-Objection
petition No.22 of 2022 filed by the claim petitioner is allowed by
enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
MACMA.1225 of 2018 and
X-obj.22 of 2022
Rs.4,96,000/- to Rs.5,90,000/-. The Cross Objector/petitioner
shall pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount.
The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of realization, payable by respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The cross-objector
shall withdraw the enhanced amount without furnishing any
security. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Dt.29.02.2024
ysk
