Telangana High Court
P Manasa , Manga, Ranga Reddy Dist And 2 ... vs Apsrtc, Hyderabad And Anr on 18 March, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
MACMA No.3654 OF 2014
Between:
1. P.Manasa @ Manga
2. P.Aarshitha
3. P.Bharathi ...Appellants/Claimants
And
1. APSRTC, rep. by its Managind Director,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
2. APSRTC, rep. by its Depot Manager,
Hasnabad, Karimnagar District.
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 18.03.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ MACMA No.3654 OF 2014
% Dated 18.03.2023
# 1. P.Manasa @ Manga
# 2. P.Aarshitha
# 3. P.Bharathi ...Appellants/Claimants
And
$ 1. APSRTC, rep. by its Managind Director,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
$ 2. APSRTC, rep. by its Depot Manager,
Hasnabad, Karimnagar District.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Kota Subba Rao.
^ Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy
Standing Counsel for APSRTC.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2001 ACJ 1273
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
3 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No.3654 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants/claimants are aggrieved by refusal of the
Tribunal to grant compensation, have filed the present appeal.
2. Briefly, the case of the claimants who are wife, child and
mother of the deceased is that the deceased along with PW2 was
going on a two wheeler on 29.12.2010 and when they reached
railway flyover bridge near Bollarum Rythubazar, the offending
RTC bus proceeding in the same direction, dashed the two wheeler
from back side in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the
deceased and another-PW2 falling down and receiving injuries.
Passersby called up the Ambulance and accordingly they were
shifted to Hospital. While undergoing treatment the deceased died
on the same day. The brother of the deceased lodged FIR before
the concerned police station stating that an unknown vehicle hit
the two wheeler and resultantly the deceased fell down. Passersby
called the Ambulance and accordingly they were shifted to the
hospital.
3. The Tribunal refused compensation to the claimants on the
ground that the claimants were not able to prove that the accident
had taken place in the manner they have spoken to. The Tribunal
further found that the offending vehicle-bus which is AP 28 Z
3306 was not involved in the accident since the bus number or
the type of vehicle which was involved in the accident was not
mentioned in the FIR. The Inquest Report also indicates that it
was an unknown vehicle that dashed against the two wheeler. The
other reason for refusing the compensation was that PW2 who was
a pillion rider did not state about the RTC bus at the earliest point
of time. However, he had informed about the RTC bus only when
he was examined by the Police before filing charge sheet.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that the Tribunal had committed an error in coming to the
conclusion that the bus was not involved. In the counter filed by
the RTC, it is stated that the vehicle had contributed to the
accident as he was negligent in driving the vehicle. However, it is
not disputed that the bus was not involved.
5. RW1 is the driver in APSRTC who had driven the bus. He
stated that though the bus was plying on the road on a daily
basis, they were not present at the time when the alleged accident
had taken place. He stated that, taking advantage of the
knowledge that the bus which was regularly plying on the road,
twice in a day, there was collusion in between the claimants with
the Police and a false case was registered, only to extract money
from RTC.
6. The counsel appearing for the RTC would submit that the
Tribunal having considered the entire evidence on record both oral
and documentary found that the case was made up by the
claimants for a false claim. The Tribunal had correctly refused
compensation. The appeal has to be dismissed and the RTC
cannot be made liable.
7. The FIR and the Inquest Report reflect that an unknown
vehicle hit the two wheeler of the deceased. The said information
in the FIR was given by the brother of the deceased who was not
present at the scene. He lodged the complaint on the basis of the
information received by him on phone. Further, the inquest report
also does not make a mention about the bus being involved in the
accident.
8. As seen from the charge sheet, the driver of the bus was
arrested on 03.01.2011 i.e. within 4 days of the incident. The
Police identified the bus which caused the accident during their
investigation as AP 28 Z 3306 and contacted the Manager of
Husnabad Depot, explained the facts and then the bus driver was
arrested. The crime vehicle which is bus was also subjected to
examination by the motor vehicle inspector. The identity of the
driver of the bus was within four days of the accident. It cannot be
said that the police would have falsely implicated the RTC bus and
the driver who is a public servant in a false accident unless their
investigation discloses that it was the driver who was involved.
The findings of the Tribunal that the details of the vehicle were not
found in FIR and also the Inquest Report cannot form basis to
disregard the investigation of the Police in identifying the crime
vehicle and also the driver which is within four days of the
accident.
9. In the Judgment of Laxmibai v. Karnataka State Road
Transportation Corporation 1, the Honourable Supreme Court
found that non production of copies of log-sheet and control
charts to show that the bus in question was plying on the road on
the date of accident, cannot be made basis to decline
compensation and the Courts shall not act hyper technically while
determining a case of compensation.
10. In the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to set aside
the findings of the Tribunal that the offending vehicle was not the
2001 ACJ 1273
RTC bus which was involved on the basis of evidence, the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending RTC bus.
11. Coming to the quantum of compensation to be awarded to
the claimants is concerned, the claimants made claim petition
seeking compensation at Rs.18,00,000/-. The deceased used to
work in I-Cube Marketing on a monthly salary of Rs.14,700/- and
the claimants filed salary certificate Ex.A10 at the earliest point of
time. However this Court, deems it appropriate to consider the
income of the deceased at Rs.13,000/- per month for calculating
the loss of income due to the death of the deceased. In view of the
law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2,
future prospects @ 40% of the income of the deceased has to be
added which comes to Rs.5,200/- per month. Then the total
income of the deceased per month is Rs.18,200/-(13,000 + 5,200).
The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,18,400/-p.a.
(18,200 x 12). Since the dependents are 3 members, 1/3rd of the
income i.e. Rs.72,800/-(2,18,400x1/3) has to be deducted
towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.1,45,600/-
p.a.(2,18,400 - 72,800). As per the Judgment of Honourable
Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3
the relevant multiplier for the age group of 31-35 is '16' and then
the loss of income due to the death of the deceased comes to
Rs.23,29,600/-(1,45,600 x 16).
12. As per the decision of the Constitutional Bench of Apex court
in case of Pranay Sethi's case, the conventional heads namely
loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively and the
same should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years
and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10%. Then the total
consortium comes to Rs.1,45,200/-(1,20,000 x 10% for every
three years) and Loss of Estate and funeral expenses comes to
Rs.36,300/- (15,000 + 15,000 + Add 10% for every three years).
13. In total claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.25,11,100/-( 23,29,600+ 1,45,200 + 36,300).
14. Accordingly, MACMA is allowed and the
appellants/claimants are granted compensation of Rs.25,11,100/-
with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of
realization payable by respondents 1 and 2, jointly and severally.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
All the three claimants are entitled to the aforesaid compensation
in equal shares.
15. The claimants have to pay the deficit Court fee or the
Tribunal may deduct the amount required for the purpose of
Court fee from the amount awarded to the claimants after
respondents Insurance Company deposits the amount.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 18.03.2024
tk
