Telangana High Court
M/S The Telangana State Road Transport ... vs P Yellamma on 10 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
No.1438 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded in the Order and Decree dated
31.01.2017 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition
No.635 of 2015 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief
Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
Tribunal, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the
Tribunal"), the appellant-respondent No.2 preferred the
present appeal praying this Court to set aside the
impugned Order and Decree.
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 the petitioners
filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of
one P. Parusuram, husband of petitioner No.1, father of
petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and son of petitioner No.4 (hereinafter 2
referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle
Accident that occurred on 12.09.2015.
04. According to the petitioners, on the fateful day,
while the deceased was proceeding by walk from Uppal to
Shanthinagar, on extreme left side of the road and reached
Uppal Bus Stand, suddenly the driver of RTC Bus bearing
No.AP 29 Z 1716 which was proceeding in the same
direction came in rash and negligent manner and dashed
the deceased, due to which he sustained fatal injuries and
died on the spot. The Police, Uppal has registered a case in
Crime No.882 of 2015 for the offence under Section 304-A
of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of RTC Bus.
05. According to the petitioners, the deceased was
aged 35 years and he used to work as labour and earning
Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute his entire
earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to sudden
demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread
winner and love and affection. Therefore, the petitioners
filed the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 & 2 3
claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on various
heads.
06. Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No.1
remained ex-parte, the respondent No.2 filed counter
denying the averments of the petition, age, avocation of the
deceased and further contended that the compensation
claimed by the petitioners is very high and exorbitant and
prayed to dismiss the petition.
07. Considering the claim of the petitioners and
counter filed by respondent No.2 and on evaluation of oral
and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the Motor
Vehicle Original Petition, awarding a total compensation of
Rs.16,70,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be
deposited by respondent Nos.1 & 2, jointly and severally.
08. Challenging the same, respondent No.2 has
filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
09. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of appellant-respondent No.2 and the learned 4
counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. Perused the
material available on record.
10. The main contention of the learned Standing
Counsel for appellant-respondent No.2 is that the learned
Tribunal without proper evidence awarded compensation of
Rs.16,70,000/- which is on higher side and prayed this
Court to allow this appeal by reducing the compensation
amount by considering the guidelines formulated by the
Honourable Supreme Court of India in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others1.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents has contended that the learned Tribunal has
adequately granted the compensation and the same needs
no interference by this Court.
12. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned Order and Decree dated 31.01.2017 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.635 of 2015 by the learned XXVII Additional Chief
1 2017 ACJ 2700 5
Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is liable to be set aside?
P O I N T:
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents available on record.
14. PW1 who is the wife of the deceased reiterated
the contents of the claim application and got marked Ex.A1
to A7 as she is not an eyewitness to the accident, she got
examined PW2 who is eyewitness to the accident who
deposed that he was standing near Uppal Bus stand on
12.09.2015 at about 07:15 PM., the deceased who was
walking on the left side of the road was hit by RTC Bus
bearing No.AP 29 Z 1716 and died on the spot. During the
course of cross-examination nothing was elicited to
disbelieve their evidence.
15. 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 i.e., Exs.A1-FIR, A2-Charge
sheet, A3-Scene of offence panchanama and A6-Motor 6
Vehicle Inspector's Report held that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus
bearing No.AP 29 Z 1716. 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.
16. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the
age of the deceased as 35 years and taken income
at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is
pertinent to state that without filing any
documentary proof or examining any person to
prove the monthly income of the deceased, the
monthly income taken by Tribunal is at higher
side. Hence, considering the avocation of the
deceased, this Court is inclined to interfering with
the said finding of the Tribunal by decreasing the
monthly income of the deceased from Rs.10,000/-
to Rs.6,000/-. In view of the decision of the Honourable
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. 7
Pranay Sethi and others 2 40% i.e., Rs.2,400/- towards
future prospects can duly be added thereto, which comes
to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-). Hence, this
Court is inclined to fix the annual income of the
deceased at Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.8,400x12). Since
there are four dependents, after deducting 1/4th
(Rs.25,200/-) 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 3, the net annual contribution to the family comes
to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.1,00,800/- - Rs.25,200/-).
17. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 35
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 '16'. Thus,
applying the multiplier '16' to the annual loss of
dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.75,600/-, the
total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,09,600/-
(Rs.75,600/- x 16). In addition to that, the petitioners are
2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2009 (6) SCC 121 8
entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads
(Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Further, the
petitioners Nos.2 and 3 being the minor children of the
deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.80,000/-
under the head of parental consortium as per the decision
of the Honourable Apex Court in Magma General
Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru
Ram and others 4. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled
to compensation of Rs.13,66,600/-.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.16,70,000/- is higher side
and the same is reduced to Rs.13,66,600/-. In so far as
interest is concerned, the Order of the Tribunal is
confirmed. The compensation amount, if not deposited by
the respondents, shall be deposited 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. The petitioners
shall pay deficit Court fee for Rs.1,66,600/- only. If the
4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 9
deficit Court fee is already deposited by the petitioners for
the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal, the
difference Court fee shall be refunded to the petitioners,
after proper calculation and under proper
acknowledgement.
19. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed reducing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.16,70,000/- to Rs.13,66,600/-. There shall be no order
as to costs.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 10-JAN-2024 KHRM
