Telangana High Court
Tsrtc And Another vs Gore Kedari, Nizamabad Dist And 4 Others on 10 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.794 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
directed against order and decree dated 20.10.2016 in O.P.No.319
of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, VIII
Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as
'the Tribunal'). The said O.P. filed by the petitioners therein
seeking compensation for death of one K. Gore Balaji (hereinafter
referred to as 'deceased') was partly allowed granting
compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is filed at the instance of respondents/RTC before
the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is wife
and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are children of the deceased. On
24.11.2015 at about 06:30 P.M., while the deceased and another
person were going to Navipet, when they reached near Nehru Park
Chowrastha, Nizamabad, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 763
driven in rash and negligent manner came in high speed and 2 MGP,J MACMA_794_2017
dashed the deceased, due to which, the accident occurred and the
deceased fell down on the road, sustained multiple grievous
injuries and succumbed to injuries, on the way to Hospital at
Hyderabad. In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.30
of 2015 against the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 763
on the file of Traffic Police Station Nizamabad.
4. It is further case of the petitioners that the deceased was
aged about 54 years as on the date of the accident and was
earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month by doing mutton
business. He was hale and healthy and contributing his earnings
to the petitioners for maintenance of the family. Hence, the
petitioners filed the present claim petition seeking compensation
of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents.
5. The respondents filed their written statement denying the
averments of the claim petition and contended that the accident
did not occur due to negligence of the driver of the RTC bus.
Further, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excess
and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against
them.
3
MGP,J MACMA_794_2017
6. In support of their case, the petitioners got examined P.Ws.1
and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of respondents,
R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was got marked.
7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the
Tribunal held that the petitioners have successfully established
their case. Hence, the claim petition was partly allowed holding
that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is filed at the instance of the respondents.
8. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellants/RTC.
Despite service of notice, none appeared and there is no
representation for respondents/petitioners.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for
appellants/RTC is that the Tribunal without proper evidence has
awarded compensation, which is on higher side. It is also
contended that without any income proof the Tribunal has taken
the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. Further, it is
also contended that the Tribunal has granted higher 4 MGP,J MACMA_794_2017
amount under the conventional heads. Hence, prayed to allow the
appeal and set aside the impugned order and decree.
10. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as granted by the Tribunal?"
Point:-
11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
placed on record by both the parties. On behalf of petitioners, the
wife of the deceased i.e., petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1
reiterating contents of the claim petition and she deposed about
the manner of the accident and death of the deceased. As P.W.1
is not eyewitness to the accident, she got examined P.W.2, who is
the eyewitness. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that he along with
the deceased was proceeding towards Bodhan Bus stand,
Nizamabad, to go to Navipet village, to purchase goats and at that
time, the accident occurred. In the cross-examination, P.W.2
denied that suggestion that he was not accompanying the
deceased at the time of the accident and that he has not witnessed
the accident and that the crime bus was not involved in the
accident.
5
MGP,J MACMA_794_2017
12. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1, the driver of crime bus was
examined and he deposed that on 24.01.2015 at about 06:30 AM,
while he was coming from Depot-II to go to main bus stand of
Nizamabad, he found two persons lying on the middle of the road
at the Circle of Nehru Park road in front of Big 'C' Mobile cell
phones shop. He further deposed that with the help of the driver
of another bus namely S.B.Singh, they moved the said persons
lying on the road to the side of the road and he went ahead with
the bus, as such, no accident took place with his bus and that for
wrongful gain, the present claim petition is filed. In proof of same,
R.W.1 filed Ex.B-1, which is certified copy of judgment in
C.C.No.279 of 2015 dated 19.08.2016 on the file of I Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. In the cross-
examination, R.W.1 admitted that police filed charge sheet against
him. He denied the suggestion that he confessed before the police
that the accident occurred due to his negligence and that he was
acquitted on technical grounds, though he is responsible for the
accident.
13. It is undisputed fact that the deceased died in a road traffic
accident. Ex.A-1-First Information Report shows that the case 6 MGP,J MACMA_794_2017
has been registered in Crime No.30 of 2015 and police took up
investigation and after completion of investigation charge sheet
under Ex.A-2 was filed against R.W.1, who is driver of the RTC
bus. Ex.A-3 is inquest report and Ex.A-4 is postmortem
examination report, which clearly show that the deceased died in
a road traffic accident. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard
to accident and death of the deceased in such accident. Hence,
the Tribunal after considering the above aspects has rightly
arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus.
14. It is pertinent to state that though, the respondents have
filed Ex.B-1 certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.279 of 2015
showing the acquittal of the accused therein i.e., R.W.1, the same
will not bind on the present case as the same is civil case.
Therefore, Ex.B-1, which is relied upon by the respondents cannot
be considered and the said aspect was rightly considered by the
Tribunal.
15. Now, coming to the aspect of compensation, as per the
petitioners the deceased was aged about 54 years as on the date of
the accident. However, Ex.A-4 postmortem examination report 7 MGP,J MACMA_794_2017
shows the age of the deceased as 58 years. The petitioners have
not filed any document to prove that the age of the deceased is 54
years. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly
considered the age of the deceased as 58 years based on Ex.A-4
postmortem examination report. Further, though, the petitioners
contended that the deceased was earning an amount of
Rs.30,000/- per month doing mutton business, no proof of
earnings is filed. Hence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the
deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and further, as dependants are
five in number 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses and
considering the appropriate multiplier i.e., 9, the Tribunal
calculated compensation and arrived at loss of dependency of
Rs.4,05,000/-.
16. Furthermore, as seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal
has granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation
for loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses,
which is on higher side. Therefore, this Court relying upon the
decision of Apex Court, in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 1, is inclined to grant an
1 2017 ACJ 2700 8 MGP,J MACMA_794_2017
amount of Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads
(Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Hence, in all the total
quantum of compensation comes to Rs.4,82,000/-.
17. Coming to the interest part, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable interest
on the compensation amount and interference of this Court is
unwarranted.
18. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is allowed by reducing the compensation from Rs.5,30,000/- to
Rs.4,82,000/- and rest of the findings in order and decree dated
20.10.2016 in O.P.No.319 of 2015 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, VIII Additional District Judge at
Nizamabad, are hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to
costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 10.01.2024 GVR
