Telangana High Court

Donthula Vani And Another vs Pasleti Swamy And 3 Others on 8 July, 2024

                                  1


          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                           AND
  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


          M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3192 of 2019 and 380 of 2020


COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.3192 of 2019 is filed by the

appellant/T.S.R.T.C., and M.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2020 is filed by

the appellants/claimants are directed against the very same

order and decree, dated 07.01.2019 passed in O.P.No.705 of

2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar

(for short, "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

The petitioners-claimants, who are the wife and daughter

of Donthula Ravi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') have

filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/-

on account of the death of the deceased, who died in a motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 18.09.2015. According to the

claimants, on 18.09.2015 at about 8.45 p.m., while the

deceased was crossing the road near Girls Urdu Medium

School, Karimnagar, a T.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-

3509, driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed against the deceased, due to which the

deceased fell and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

On a complaint, the police registered a case against the driver

of the crime vehicle for the offence punishable under Section

304-A IPC. Hence, the claim petition.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/driver of the bus

filed a counter denying the allegations of the claimants,

contending that the place of the accident was heavily crowded

and further that he blew the horn of the bus, alerting the

pedestrians to avert any untoward incident. He further stated

that the accident occurred due to the negligent crossing of the

road by the deceased.

5. Respondent No. 2/T.S.R.T.C. filed a counter denying the

manner in which the accident took place and also rejected the

age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also contended

that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.

6. The respondents Nos.3 and 4, who are parents of the

deceased, filed a counter stating the relationship between them

and the deceased and contended that the claimants hurriedly

filed the claim petition without adding them as claimants to

avoid any compensation amount to them. They further

contended that the deceased, being their son, was looking after

them, and thus, they lost their dependency at their old age.

Hence, they are also entitled to compensation.

7. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined

and marked Exs.A1 to A7 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of the

respondents, the first respondent got himself examined as

RW.1, and no document was marked.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the crime vehicle and accordingly awarded an amount of

Rs.64,43,172/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date

of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the

respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally to the petitioners and

also to respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the parents of the

deceased. Challenging the same, the present M.A.C.M.A.s are

filed.

9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2/T.S.R.T.C. contended that there was no negligence on the

part of the driver of the bus and further contended that the

accident occurred due to the negligent crossing of the road by

the deceased and the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the

liability on the respondent No.1/driver, that too when he

alerted the pedestrians by blowing the horn of the bus. The

Tribunal ought to have considered that the road on which the

accident took place is a busy and a high traffic zone and that

the question of speeding the bus does not arise. The police filed

a false case against the bus driver in order to get compensation

for the claimants. Further, the Tribunal ought not to have

relied upon the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and ought to

have considered the testimony of RW.1/bus driver.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.2/T.S.R.T.C. further contended that the Tribunal erred in

awarding compensation of Rs.64,43,172/- with interest @

7.5% p.a., which is excessive and contrary to the procedures

and principles of the M.V. Act.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners

(appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2016) contended that the

Tribunal erroneously considered the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.48,000/-, when the monthly salary of the

deceased was Rs.59,600/-. As such, the Tribunal ought to have

considered the annual income of Rs. Rs.7,13,172/-

(Rs.59,600/- x12) as against Rs.5,65,666/- (Rs.48,000/- x12).

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended

that during the pendency of the claim petition, respondent no.3

had expired, but the same could not be brought to the notice of

the Tribunal. As such, the awarded amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

towards respondent no.3 ought to be awarded in favour of

petitioner No.2, considering her future. Hence, prayed for the

enhancement of compensation to the petitioners.

13. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the

Tribunal, having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident

had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle

by its driver, and having considered the evidence of P.W.2, an

eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary

evidence i.e., Ex.A1-F.I.R., and Ex.A4-charge sheet, came to

the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of respondent no.1/R.T.C. bus driver and has

answered in favour of the petitioners and against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2. As such, there are no reasons to

interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1/RTC

bus driver.

14. Insofar as the deceased's income is concerned, according

to the petitioners, the deceased was working as a Gazetted

Head Master, and he used to earn a sum of Rs.59,431/- per

month. The petitioners produced Ex.A7, salary certificate to

prove the same, As per Ex.A7, the deceased was getting a gross

salary of Rs.59,431/- per month. Thus, the annual income of

the deceased comes to Rs.7,13,172/-. Therefore, the Tribunal

ought to have considered the annual income of the deceased to

be Rs. Rs.7,13,172/- instead of Rs.6,13,332/-. Therefore, this

Court feels it appropriate to fix the annual income of the

deceased at Rs.7,13,172/-.

15. In Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport

Corporation 1, the Apex Court has categorically held that while

assessing the deceased's income for compensation, the gross

salary minus income tax shall be taken as the income. Hence,

the income tax payable on the said amount, i.e., Rs.7,13,172/-

is:- upto Rs.2,50,000/-: NIL; From 2,50,001 to Rs.5,00,000/-

(10%): 25,000/-; Rs.5,00,001/- to 7,13,172/- (20%): 42,634/-.

Hence, the total income tax liability comes to Rs.67,634/-

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

[Rs.25,000/-+Rs.42,634/-]. Further, the deceased's

professional tax is at Rs.2,400/- [Rs.200/- x 12]. Hence, the

net annual income of the deceased minus the tax liability

comes to Rs.6,43,138/- [Rs.7,13,172/- (minus) Rs.67,634/-

(minus) Rs.2400/-]. Since the deceased was aged 49 years, the

Tribunal rightly considered future prospects of 30%, and the

annual income comes to Rs.8,36,079/- [Rs.6,43,138/- +

Rs.1,92,941/-]. The Tribunal, though observing that the

respondent nos. 3 and 4 could not be considered as

dependents on the deceased's income, has awarded a

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- each to them, since they are

the old-aged parents of the deceased. As such, respondent

Nos.3 and 4 are also considered as dependents on the

deceased's income, and accordingly, 1/4th is to be deducted

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased instead

of 1/3rd, since the dependents are four in number as on the

date of the accident. After deducting the 1/4th amount, the

contribution of the deceased would be Rs.6,27,059/-

[Rs.8,36,079/- (minus) Rs.2,09,020/-]. Since the age of the

deceased was 49 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal

rightly considered the multiplier as '13' as per the decision of

the Apex Court reported in Sarla Verma (supra). Adopting

multiplier '13', the total loss of dependency comes to

Rs.6,27,059/- x 13 = Rs.81,51,767/-.

16. Further, as per the decision of the Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2,

petitioner no.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- (Rs.40,000/-

+10%+10%) towards spousal consortium and the claimants are

further entitled to Rs.36,300/- (Rs.15,000/- +Rs.15,000/-

+10% +10%) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In

view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General

Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram

and others 3 respondent no.4 entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards

filial consortium. Therefore, the order dated 07.01.2019 passed

by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.705 of 2015 is modified as

follows:-

       S.No.               Particulars                     Amount

         1.      Annual     salary   of the             Rs. 7,13,172/-
                 deceased (Rs.59,431/-X 12)
         2.      Less: Professional Tax                  (-) Rs.2,400/-
                 (Rs.200/- X 12)
         3.      Less: Income Tax                       (-) Rs. 67,634/-

         4.      Net Income [1-(2+3)]                   Rs. 6,43,138/-

         5.      Add: 30% Future Prospects              Rs. 1,92,941/-

         6.      Sub-Total                              Rs. 8,36,079/-



    (2017) 16 SCC 680.

    (2018) 18 SCC 130



      7.    Less:     1/4th    towards        (-) Rs.2,09,020/-
            Personal Expenditure
      8.    Sub-Total [6-7]                    Rs. 6,27,059/-

      9.    Total Loss of Dependency          Rs. 81,51,767/-
            (Rs. 6,27,059/- x 13)
      10.   Add : Conventional Heads            Rs.36,300/-
            (Funeral    Expenses      and
            Loss of Estate)
            (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/-
            +10%+10%)
      11.   Add:     Loss   of    spousal       Rs.48,400/-
            consortium      (Rs.40,000/-
            +10%+10%)
      12.   Add     :   Loss    of   filial     Rs.40,000/-
            consortium
            to respondent No.4
            Total Compensation                Rs.82,76,467/-

17. Though the claimed amount is Rs.80,00,000/-, invoking

the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v.

Rajbir Singh and others 4, and in a catena of decisions, this

Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed

amount.

18. Thus, the petitioners and the 4th Respondent are entitled

to the enhanced compensation of Rs.82,76,467/- as against the

awarded amount of Rs.64,43,172/-.

19. The Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at

7.5% per annum which needs no interference by this Court.

4 2013 ACJ 1403

20. In the result, this M.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2020 is allowed.

The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is

enhanced from Rs.64,43,172/- to Rs.82,76,467/- (Rupees

Eighty Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousands Four Hundred Sixty

Seven Only) with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition

till the date of realization. However, the petitioners are directed

to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. On such payment, the said compensation amount is

to be apportioned in the same manner and proportion as

determined by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the apportionment is

made as follows:

1st Petitioner: Rs.31,45,057/- + Rs.5,00,000/-= Rs.36,45,057/-

2nd Petitioner: Rs.40,91,410/-

3rd Respondent (deceased): NIL

4th Respondent: Rs.5,40,000/-

(a) Insofar as the 3rd respondent is concerned, since he had

expired during the pendency of the claim petition and the same

could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal, learned

counsel for the petitioner contended that the compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- awarded to him by the Tribunal ought to be

given to the 1st petitioner, keeping in view her daughter's

marriage. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is re-

apportioned to Petitioner No.1.

(b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said

amount with costs and interest after giving due credit to the

amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On

such deposit, the petitioners and the 4th respondent are

permitted to withdraw the said amount in the manner as

indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

In view of M.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2020 filed by the

petitioners being allowed, questioning the quantum of

compensation filed by the T.S.R.T.C is hereby dismissed. No

order as to costs.