Telangana High Court
Ameena Begum And Another vs Apsrtc Rep. By Dm, Ibrahimpatnam Depot, ... on 10 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.3966 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 10.08.2005 in O.P.No.404 of 2001
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
2. Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and learned standing counsel for the Corporation and
perused the entire material on record.
3. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount
of Rs.4,00,000/- and the Tribunal though arrived at compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- had fixed the contributory negligence at 50% on the deceased
and granted compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of payment in favour of claimant No.1.
4. The deceased is the unmarried son of claimant No.1 and brother of
claimant No.2.
5. According to the version of the claimants, on 28.03.2001, the
deceased was going on a motorcycle and when he reached near High Luck
cross roads light signal, he saw one auto rickshaw which was going ahead
of him and its driver suddenly applied brakes and in order to avoid collision
KS, J
MACMA_3966_2008
with auto rickshaw, the deceased swerved his motorcycle towards right
side, as a result of which, he fell down on the road and ran over by RTC bus
which was coming in the opposite direction.
6. The Tribunal found that since the deceased fell down for whatever
reason, there was contributory negligence on his part and accordingly
granted 50% of the amount on the compensation arrived at by the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that though the
deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal erred in
considering the income at Rs.3,000/- per month and granted compensation
accordingly. Learned counsel requested the Court to consider the income at
Rs.5,000/- per month and grant compensation.
8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the Corporation
would submit that even according to the facts of the case, the deceased had
come before the bus on the wrong side. In the said circumstances, there
cannot be any fault on the part of the RTC bus driver and accordingly
direction of the Tribunal to pay compensation has to be set aside.
9. Having gone through the record, it is no doubt true that the
deceased skid and fell in front of the RTC bus. The RTC bus driver should
have been vigilant enough since it would be visible to him regarding the
KS, J
MACMA_3966_2008
vehicles moving on the road. However, the Tribunal has rightly concluded
that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
10. It was adduced during the course of evidence that the deceased
was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by running a readymade garments shop.
Since no supporting documents regarding his employment were produced,
the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.3,000/- per month. However, future prospects were not considered while
computing the compensation.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Pranay Sethi 1 has held that while considering the compensation in
cases of death, the future prospects of the self employed shall also be
considered. Having regard to the age of deceased below 40 years as on the
date of accident and occupation as self-employed, if 40 percent of the
income is included as future prospects, the monthly income would come to
Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000+1,200). As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v Delhi Transport Corporation2, 50% of the
income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was a
bachelor which comes to Rs.2,100/-. Thus the annual contribution of the
deceased to the claimants would be of Rs.25,200/- (Rs.2,100X12). Though
the claimants has stated the age of the deceased as 23 years, the learned
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
2009(6) SCC 121
KS, J
MACMA_3966_2008
Tribunal on considering the evidence and material on record, has taken the
age of mother i.e. 60 years while computing the compensation. As per
Schedule II of the Act, the relevant multiplier for the said age is '9'. Thus,
the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to
Rs.2,26,800/- (Rs.25,200 X 9).
12. As regards the consortium to be paid, claimant No.1 is entitled to
Rs.44,000/- towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in
case of Pranay Sethi (2 Supra). With regard to the funeral expenses and
loss of estate, she is entitled for Rs.33,000/-.
13. Therefore, the claimant No.1 is awarded the compensation as
below:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.2,26,800
(2) Funeral expenses and Loss of Estate Rs.33,000
Loss of Estate
(3) Loss of filial consortium Rs.88,000(for 1st claimant)
Total compensation awarded Rs.3,47,800/-
14. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is partly
allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.3,47,800/-. By applying the ratio of contributory
KS, J
MACMA_3966_2008
negligence at 50:50 of the bus driver and the deceased, the claimant No.1 is
entitled compensation of Rs.1,73,900/- as hereunder:
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The respondent shall deposit the amount within a period of (8)
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such
deposit, claimant No.1 is entitled to withdraw the entire amount
without furnishing the security.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No
order as to costs.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 10.07.2024
gvl
