Telangana High Court
The T S R T C vs Bingi Sabitha, on 5 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.251 OF 2019
AND
M.A.C.M.A.No.303 OF 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.251 of 2019, filed by the claimant
seeking for enhancement of compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.303
of 2019 filed by T.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, challenging the
compensation awarded, are directed against the very same order
and decree, dated 04.07.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.671 of 2015
on the file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-I Additional
District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, "the 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 petitioner,
who is the wife of one Sri Bingi Prem Kumar (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 the deceased in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 10.08.2015 at about 05.50 P.M. As
stated by the petitioner, on 10.08.2015 at about 5.50 P.M, when
the deceased-Prem Kumar was proceeding on his Pulsar
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.251 and 303 of 2019
Motorcycle bearing No.AP-24-T-1694 from Valigonda Village
towards Guduru Village and when reached the outskirts of
Nagireddypally Village, the driver of one TSRTC Bus Bearing
No.AP-28-Z-6097, which was proceeding from Bhongir towards
Nalgonda, drove the said RTC Bus in a rash and negligent manner
at a high speed and dashed the deceased from opposite direction.
As a result, the deceased fell down from the motor cycle, sustained
head injury, fracture of right leg and other injuries all over the
body and died on the spot. Based on a complaint, the Police of
Bhongir Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.156 of
2015 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending
RTC Bus Bearing No.AP-28Z-6097. It is stated by the petitioner
that the deceased was aged 30 years and was hale and healthy and
working as Helper in MSN Organics Private Limited, Bibinagar and
used to earn salary of Rs.20,000/- per month along with other
allowances and was contributing his entire earnings for
maintenance of his family. Due to sudden death of the deceased,
the claimant lost her conjugal happiness and source of income and
hence, filed claim petition against Respondent Nos.1 & 2, being the
Driver and owner of the offending bus bearing No.AP-28Z-6097.
4. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1, who is the driver of
the offending RTC Bus Bearing No.AP-28Z-6097 and Respondetn
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.251 and 303 of 2019
No.3, who is the mother of the deceased, were set exparte on
20.10.2016 and 01.05.2018 respectively.
5. Respondent No.2/Corporation, who is the owner of the
offending RTC Bus, filed its counter denying the very occurrence of
the accident which includes, involvement of offending bus, rash
and negligent driving on part of its driver, death of the deceased in
the accident and further denied that the petitioner and respondent
No.3 are legal heirs of the deceased and that the accident occurred
due to the negligence on part of the deceased only and further,
stated that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and
hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the deceased by name Bingi Prem Kumar
died due to rash and negligent driving of driver of
TSRTC Bus Bearing No.AP-28-Z-6097?
(ii) Whether the petitioner/claimant is entitled to
compensation? If so, what amount and what
relief?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Before the Tribunal, petitioner herself was examined as PW1
and also got examined PWs 2 & 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.251 and 303 of 2019
on her behalf. On behalf of Respondent No.2/Corporation, the
driver of the offending bus was examined as RW1.
8. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount
of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
payable by Respondent No.2 alone to the petitioner and
Respondent No.3 as Respondent No.1 is a Driver working under
Respondent No.2-Corporation. Challenging the same, the present
appeals came to be filed by the Insurance Company and the
claimant respectively.
9. Heard both sides and perused the entire material available
on record.
10. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.251 of 2019 is that though the learned
Tribunal had arrived at the compensation amount @
Rs.29,31,000/-, but the learned Tribunal restricted the same to
an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- only which is bad in law as per the
decision reported in 2013(9) SCC 54 and hence prayed for
enhancement of the compensation. It is also contended that the
learned Tribunal ought to have awarded more amount towards
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.251 and 303 of 2019
Love and affection and ought to have granted interest @ 12%
instead of 7.5%.
11. On the other hand, the contention raised by the learned
Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/appellant in
M.A.C.M.A.No.303 of 2019 is that the learned Tribunal failed to
consider the insurer of the Two wheeler bearing No.AP-24AT-1694
as proper and necessary party to the claim petition and hence, the
petition ought to have been dismissed for non-joinder of necessary
parties and further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in
awarding excess and exorbitant compensation without following
the principles and procedure under MV Act.
12. Now the points that emerges for determination are,
(i). Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal
suffers from any irregularity?
(ii). Whether the appellant in MACMA.No.251 of 2019 is
entitled for enhancement of compensation?
POINTS:-
13. It is pertinent to state that the claim petitioner, who is the
wife of the deceased, was examined as PW1. She deposed that her
husband was appointed through M/s.Jai Hanuman Enterprises,
Bibinagar Village and used to work as loading and unloading
worker in MSN Organics Private Limited, Bibinagar and used to
earn salary of Rs.15,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as allowances per
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.251 and 303 of 2019
month and used to contribute the same for maintenance of his
family. She deposed that Respondent No.3 is her mother-in-law
and she receives family pension of her deceased husband, as such,
she is not willing to file claim petition for the death of his deceased-
son.
14. PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident, filed an affidavit
in lieu of his chief examination and deposed that on 10.08.2015, at
about 5.15 PM, when he was travelling in RTC Yadagirigutta Depot
bus bearing No.AP-28Z-6097 from Bhongir Town to Nagaram
Village, on the way, when the said bus reached Nagireddypally
Village at about 5.50PM, the driver of the said RTC Bus drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed to
a motor cycle which was coming in the opposite direction. As a
result, the motorcyclist, who is none other than the deceased
herein, sustained head injuries and other bleeding injuries all over
his body and died on the spot. Immediately, after the accident,
the driver of the bus escaped from the accident place and after the
said accident, PW2, along with other passengers, got down from
the said bus and informed the incident to the Bibinagar Police
Station, who informed about the said incident to the relatives of
the deceased, who reached the accident place and shifted the
deceased to Government Area Hospital, Bhongir. Hence, the
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.251 and 303 of 2019
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the RTC Bus Bearing No.AP-28Z-6097.
15. PW3, who is the Proprietor of Jai Hanuman Enterprises,
which institution is engaged in supplying Contract Labour to
various companies, deposed in his evidence that in the year 2014,
they got the work of loading, unloading, gardening and
housekeeping in the establishment of M.S.N.Organics Private
Limited, Bibinagar, Nalgonda District and obtained license for the
same. He stated that he deputed the deceased as contract labour
in MSN Organics Private Limited and during his employment, he
paid Rs.15,000/- as monthly salary to the deceased and Ex.A7 is
the salary certificate issued to him. He also filed a joint
undertaking between Hanuman Enterprises and MSN Organics
regarding payment of salary according to Minimum Wages Act
under Ex.A9 and also filed Service Certificate of the deceased
issued by MSN Organics Company Private Limited under Ex.A10.
16. During the course of examination of PWs1 to 3, on behalf of
them, Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. Ex.A1 is the FIR in Crime
No.156 of 2015 registered by Police of Bhongir (R) Police Station,
Nalgonda District for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Ex.A2
is the inquest report and the opinion expressed by the
panchayatdars is that the death of the deceased was due to the
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.251 and 303 of 2019
injuries sustained to him in the road accident. Ex.A3 is the post
mortem examination report wherein, the cause of death was due to
Head Injury. Ex.A4 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.A5 is
the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector wherein, it is stated that the
accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle.
Ex.A6 is the charge sheet which states that the death of the
deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28Z-6097 and hence, he committed
offence under Section 304A IPC. Ex.A7 is the Salary Certificate
issued by Jain Hanuman Enterprises certifying that they used to
pay monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- to the deceased. Ex.A8 is the
license issued to PW3 by Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Nalgonda. Ex.A9 is the Joint undertaking between PW3 and MSN
Organics Private Limited. Ex.A10 is the Service Certificate of the
deceased issued by MSN Organics Private Limited certifying that
the deceased used to work as a loading and unloading worker.
Though PWs 1 to 3 were put to cross-examination, nothing adverse
was elicited from them.
17. Coming to the evidence of RW1, who is working as Driver of
in the 2nd respondent-Corporation and who drove the alleged Bus
bearing No.AP-28Z-6097, stated in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief
examination that the deceased drove his motor cycle in a rash and
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.251 and 303 of 2019
negligent manner on wrong side and tried to hit the bus and in
order to avoid head on collision, he drove the Bus totally to left side
and in the meantime, the rider of the motor cycle lost control over
his motorcycle and fell down and sustained severe head injury and
died on the spot. During his cross-examination, he admitted that
police registered a case against RTC bus and also stated that after
accident, he was kept under suspension for a period of six months.
18. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
appellant/RTC in MACMA.303 of 2019 that the learned Tribunal
failed to consider the insurer of the Two wheeler bearing No.AP-
24AT-1694 as proper and necessary party to the claim petition and
hence, the petition ought to have been dismissed for non-joinder of
necessary parties. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that a
perusal of FIR, charge sheet and evidence of eye-witness i.e., PW2
discloses that the deceased- Bingi Prem Kumar died due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus Bearing
No.AP-28Z-6097. Therefore, the question of adding the insurer of
the Two wheeler motorcycle as necessary party to the claim
petition is unwarranted. Hence, the contention of the learned
Standing Counsel for TSRTC that the claim petition is liable to be
dismissed for non-joinder of insurer of motorcycle is
unsustainable.
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.251 and 303 of 2019
19. Coming to the compensation awarded, the learned Tribunal,
by taking into consideration Ex.A7-Salary Certificate, fixed the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and
after addition of relevant future prospects as per the age of the
deceased by relying upon the decision of the -Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1
and deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the
deceased and by applying relevant multiplier, arrived a total
amount of Rs.28,56,000/- towards loss of dependency. In addition
to this, the learned Tribunal had also granted Rs.5,000/- towards
transport charges and an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards
conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon for every
3 years) which in total comes to Rs.29,31,000/-. But the learned
Tribunal restricted the compensation amount to Rs.25,00,000/-
only as the claim made by the petitioner is only for Rs.25,00,000/-.
This Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others 2, is inclined
to interfere with the said finding and hereby award the total
compensation amount which was arrived at i.e., Rs.29,31,000/-.
Except the said finding, the findings given by the learned Tribunal
in all other aspects shall remain the same.
2017 ACJ 2700
(2003) 2 SCC 274
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos.251 and 303 of 2019
20. Hence, M.A.C.M.A.No.303 of 2019 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.251 of 2019 filed by the
claim petitioner is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount
from Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.29,31,000/- payable by Respondent
No.2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to
withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned
Tribunal by paying the deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount of
compensation. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.05.07.2024
ysk
