Telangana High Court
Panthini Sridhar Rao And 2 Others vs Apsrtc on 11 January, 2024
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1873 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - I Additional
District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, the Tribunal) passed in O.P
No.89 of 2015, dated 10.11.2016, the appellants/petitioners in
O.P. filed the present appeal seeking the Court to set-aside the
order of the learned Tribunal by enhancing the compensation
amount.
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 nutshell are that the petitioners,
who are the husband and children of the deceased-Panthini
Premalatha had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/- with costs and interest on account of the death
of the deceased-Premalatha, who died in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 06.12.2014. It is stated by the
petitioners that on 06.12.2014 at about 11.00 AM, when the
deceased, who is a pillion rider on the motor cycle along with
her sister Ms.T.Poornima, who was riding the Pleasure two
wheeler bearing No.AP-20R-3184 from Malkajgiri to Uppal and 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.1873 of 2017
when reached N.G.R.I Gate, Habsiguda at about 11.30 AM, one
APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039 came in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed the said Pleasure
two wheeler motor cycle from the backside. As a result, the
persons present on the said two wheeler, fell down on the road
and received serious injuries and fractures. Immediately, they
were shifted to Whitus Hospital at Habsiguda and the doctors
gave First Aid and as the deceased sustained grievous injuries,
she was referred to Yashoda Hospital at Secunderabad. The
deceased was admitted as inpatient in the said hospital on the
same day and while undergoing treatment, she died on
17.12.2014 at about 10.08 AM due to grievous injuries and
fractures sustained by her in vital parts of the body. Later, the
dead body of the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital at
Secunderabad for conducting post-mortem examination. The
P.S., Osmania University, registered a case in Crime No.440 of
2014 for the offence under Section 337 IPC. It was submitted by
the petitioners that prior to accident, the deceased was aged
about 33 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
giving tuitions to the upper primary school students and used
to contribute the same for maintenance of her family. It is
further stated by the petitioners that the deceased was
preparing for groups and DSC as she studied Bachelor of 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.1873 of 2017
Commerce, Bachelor of Education, Master of Business
Administration and she has also qualified in APTET in July
2011 and if she is alive, she would have got Government job and
would have provided better amenities to the petitioners. As the
deceased was no more, the petitioners, with a great hardship,
filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-
from the respondent- TSRTC.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-RTC filed its counter
denying the averments made in the claim petition, manner in
which the accident occurred, denied the age, occupation,
income and health condition of the deceased and further
contended that the compensation claimed is excessive,
exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against them.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the deceased by name P.Premalatha died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1039?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief ?
4
MGP,J MACMA.No.1873 of 2017
6. In order to prove the above issues, on behalf of the
petitioners, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A17 were
got marked. On behalf of the respondent, no witness was
examined and no documents were marked.
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire
evidence and documents available on record, partly allowed the
petition filed by the petitioners by awarding compensation of
Rs.17,45,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
which is payable by the respondent-TSRTC within one month
from the date of order.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-TSRTC filed the
present Appeal.
9. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for
the respondent-TSRTC. Perused the material available on
record.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants
is that the Tribunal ought to have granted more compensation
by considering the educational background of the deceased. He
also contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.1873 of 2017
the income of the deceased as more than Rs.15,000/- per
month and finally contended that the learned Tribunal ought to
have granted compensation from the date of accident.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-
RTC contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the
entire evidence and documents available on record, awarded
reasonable compensation for which the interference of this
Court is unwarranted.
12. Now the point that arise for determination is,
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire record and also the
evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants/petitioners. PW1,
who is the husband of the deceased, reiterated the contents
made in the claim petition and deposed that on 06.12.2014, at
about 11.00 AM, when his wife along with her sister T.Poornima
were going on Pleasure two wheeler from Malkajgiri to Uppal
and when they reached near NGRI Gate, Habsiguda at about
11.30 AM, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1039 came from
backside in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and
dashed their two wheeler vehicle. As a result, they both fell 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.1873 of 2017
down and sustained grievous injuries and fractures and the
vehicle was also damaged. The deceased died while undergoing
treatment at Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad.
Due to the said accident, police, Osmania University, registered
a case in Crime No.440 of 2014 against the driver of the said
RTC bus for his rash and negligent driving.
14. PW2, who is not only an eye witness to the accident, but
also a victim in the accident, stated in her evidence that when
she, along with her sister -deceased Premalatha were going on
their Pleasure two wheeler motor cycle from Malkajgiri to Uppal
and when reached Habsiguda NGRI gate at about 11.30 AM,
one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z1039 came in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed their two wheeler
from backside. As a result, they both sustained grievous injuries
and fractures and were shifted to Whitus Hospital, Habsiguda
and later, after rendering first aid, as her sister condition was
serious, she was referred to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad.
Due to multiple injuries and fractures caused to the internal
parts of the body, her sister died on 17.12.2014. She firmly
deposed that the death of her sister occurred only due to the
internal injuries and multiple injuries and fractures sustained
by her in the accident that occurred due to rash and negligent 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.1873 of 2017
driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z
1039. Exs.A1 to A7 support the contention of PW2. Ex.A1-Copy
of FIR shows that a case has been registered in Crime No.440 of
2014 by the P.S., Osmania University against the driver of the
APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP11Z1039. Exs.A4 & A5 shows that
the cause of death of the deceased was due to the injuries
sustained by her in the accident. Ex.A6 is the copy of charge
sheet which shows that the police, after thorough investigation,
had laid charge sheet against the driver of the APSRTC Bus
bearing No.AP 11Z 1039. So, from the evidence of PWs 1 & 2
coupled with the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A7, it is
clear that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of APSRC Bus which resulted in the death
of the deceased-Premalatha.
15. The evidence of PW3, who is a Resident Medical Officer of
Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad shows that the deceased-
Premalatha was admitted in their Hospital on 06.12.2014
pertaining to a road traffic accident that occurred on
06.12.2014. He deposed about the injuries and surgeries
undergone for the said injuries by the deceased-Premalatha
which are mentioned as under :-
Injuries sustained by the deceased:-
8
MGP,J MACMA.No.1873 of 2017
1. RTA with poly trauma
2. Pelvic fracture with right iliac wing fracture, right superior and inferior pubicf rami frcture right sacrum fracture.
3. Crush avulsion injury around pelvis with degloving injury of skin.
4. Left anterior abdominal wall selulities with sepsis.
Surgeries undergone by the deceased:-
1. Debridement plus haemostasis under general anesthesia on 06.12.2014.
2. Debridement under general anesthesia on 08.12.2014.
3. Debridement plus SSG under General Anesthesia on 11.12.2014.
4. Orif right iliac wing under general anesthesia on 11.12.2014.
16. He also stated in his evidence that though the deceased
was treated with utmost care and caution, they could not save
her life and hence, she was died on 17.12.2014 at 10.06 A.M.
He stated that the deceased incurred an amount of
Rs.5,21,650/- towards her treatment in the said hospital.
17. The evidence of PW4, who is an Accounts Manager in
Yashoda hospital, shows that the deceased spent an amount of
Rs.5,20,000/- towards her treatment. Therefore, the evidence
of PWs3 & 4 along with Ex.A8 shows that the deceased incurred
an amount of Rs.5,20,000/- towards medical expenses and the 9 MGP,J MACMA.No.1873 of 2017
learned Tribunal had rightly awarded compensation of
Rs.5,20,000/- towards medicines and investigations.
18. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is the case of
the appellants that the deceased worked as a Tutor and used to
earn Rs.15,000/- per month. However, in that regard, no oral
or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellants either
to prove the income or to prove the avocation of the deceased,
except by merely relying upon Exs.A9 to A17 which are the
certificates of qualification of the deceased-Premalatha. Such
being the case, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the
deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. Considering the fact that
the accident is of the year 2014 and as the deceased was 34
years old, this Court is of the view that the income of Rs.9,000/-
per month fixed by the Tribunal is meagre and needs
enhancement. Therefore, taking into consideration the Master
Degree in Business Administration of the deceased and that
there is every chance for the deceased to get a Government job,
this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased
at Rs.12,000/-. That apart, as per the principles laid down by
the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others 1, since the deceased was aged about
1 2017 ACJ 2700 10 MGP,J MACMA.No.1873 of 2017
34 years, the appellants are entitled for addition of 40% of
established income towards future prospects. Therefore,
monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.16,800/-. Since
there are three dependants, after deducting 1/3rd towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net monthly
income that was being contributed to the family of the deceased
comes to Rs.11,200/- per month. As the age of the deceased
was 34 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate
multiplier is '16' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation 2. Adopting multiplier 16, the
total loss of dependency works out to Rs.21,50,400/-
(Rs.11,200/- x 12 x 16). That apart, the learned Tribunal had
awarded an amount of Rs.5,20,000/- towards medicines and
investigations, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses,
Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.10,000/- towards
consortium and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate, love and
affection. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled to an amount
of Rs.27,43,400/-
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.17,45,000/- to
Rs.27,43,400/- which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum
2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 11 MGP,J MACMA.No.1873 of 2017
from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization
payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The
appellants are entitled for equal shares. The respondent-TSRTC
is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same
without depositing any security. However, the appellants shall
pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation. No
order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.11.01.2024 ysk
