Telangana High Court
Tsrtc, Rep By Its M.D., Hyderabad And Anr vs Sirigiri Aruna, Nizamabad And 4 Others on 1 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
805 OF 2017
J U D G M E N T:
Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13.10.2016
(impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition
No.942 of 2012 by the learned VIII Additional District
Judge, Nizamabad, (for short "the Tribunal"), appellants-
respondents preferred the present Appeal praying this
Court to set aside the impugned Order.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the
parties will be referred to as per their array before the
Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 filed a petition under Section
166(1)(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation
of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one Sirigiri Suresh,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a
Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 09.10.2012.
Petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are
children and petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 09.10.2012 at
about 06:10 AM., petitioner No.1 and the deceased were
travelling in an Auto bearing No.AP 01 X 5345 from
Mudhole towards Basar and when they reached near Saw
Mill, Mudhole Village Shivar, Adilabad District, meanwhile
one Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 3395 being driven by its
driver in rash and negligent manner came in high speed
from opposite direction on wrong side and dashed against
their auto, due to which auto was completely damaged and
petitioner No.1 and the deceased sustained grievous
injuries. The deceased died on the spot. The Police,
Mudhole registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2012 for the
offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code.
05. According to petitioner, the deceased was aged
28 years and used to attend agriculture-cum-animal
business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and used to
contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of the family.
Due to sudden demise of the deceased, petitioners lost
their bread winner and love and affection. Therefore,
petitioners filed claim petition against respondents-RTC
claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
06. Before the Tribunal, respondents-RTC filed
counter denying the claim of petitioners. Further
contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on
the part of the driver of Auto bearing No. AP 01 X 5345 and
that the compensation claimed by petitioners is very high
and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
07. On behalf of petitioners, PW1 to PW3 were
examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of
respondents, RW1 was examined and no documentary
evidence was adduced.
08. Considering the claim of the petitioner and
counter filed by respondents and on evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the Motor
Vehicle Original Petition, awarding a total compensation of
Rs.9,13,500/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization, to be
deposited by respondents.
09. Challenging the same, respondents-RTC has
filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants-respondents
and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents. Perused the material available on
record.
11. The main contention of the learned Standing
Counsel for appellants-RTC is that the learned Tribunal
without proper evidence awarded huge compensation of
Rs.9,13,500/- which is on higher side, by taking future
prospects at 50% and awarding huge amount towards
conventional heads and that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligence on the part of the driver of auto but
not on the part of RTC bus driver. However, the learned
Tribunal has not considered the said aspect. Therefore,
prayed this Court to allow this appeal by setting aside the
impugned Order.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents has contended that the learned Tribunal has
adequately granted reasonable and just compensation and
the same needs no interference by this Court.
13. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned Order and Decree dated
13.10.2016 passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition
No.942 of 2012 by the learned Tribunal, is liable to
be set aside?
P O I N T:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents available on record.
15. PW1 who is the wife of the deceased, injured
and eyewitness to the accident reiterated the contents of
the claim application and deposed that on 09.10.2012 at
about 06:10 AM., she along with her husband travelling in
an Auto bearing No. AP 01 X 5345 from Mudhole towards
Basar and when they reached near Saw Mill, Mudhole
Village Shivar, Adilabad District, meanwhile one Bus
bearing No. AP 28 Z 3395 being driven by its driver in rash
and negligent manner came in high speed from opposite
direction on wrong side and dashed against their auto, due
to which auto was completely damaged and they sustained
grievous injuries and the deceased died while shifting to
hospital.
16. RW1-driver of the RTC bus deposed that on
09.10.2012 when the bus was overtaking the lorry by
giving signal, at about 06:00 PM., an Auto bearing No. AP
01 X 5345 proceeding from Mudhole towards Basar which
was overloaded with passengers came with high speed in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed the front portion of
the bus and that there is no rash and negligence on the
part of RW1.
17. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the Tribunal after evaluating the oral evidence of PW1-
eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary
evidence available on record, has awarded compensation.
It is pertinent to state that a perusal of Ex.A1-FIR discloses
that the Police, Mudhole registered a case in Crime No.106
of 2012 for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-
A of the Indian Penal Code and during the course of
investigation inquest and postmortem examination was
conducted vide Exs.A3 and A4 and after completion of
investigation Ex.A2-charge sheet was filed against the
driver of the RTC bus. Exs.A3-Inquest report and A4-
postmortem examination report discloses that the deceased
died in road traffic accident. Therefore, the contention of
the learned Standing Counsel for appellants that there is
contributory negligence on the part of driver of Auto, is
unsustainable, as the Police after thorough investigation
laid charge sheet against the driver of the RTC bus.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
said findings of the Tribunal which are based on
appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the
only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the
quantum of compensation.
18. Learned Standing counsel for appellants
further argued that the learned Tribunal has
awarded excess amount of compensation under the
conventional heads and future prospects.
19. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the
age as 29 years as per Ex.A4-PME report and the
deceased was attending agriculture work and doing
animal business and as no documentary proof or
examining any person to prove the monthly income
of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-, the Tribunal has
taken monthly income as Rs.3,000/-. Hence, this
Court is not inclined to interfering with the said
finding of the Tribunal.
20. While calculating the compensation
amount, the learned Tribunal has taken future
prospects at the rate of 50%, further learned
Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss
of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care,
protection and guidance to petitioner Nos.2 to 4.
21. It is pertinent to state here that as the
deceased was self-employed and aged below 40
years, 40% future prospects have to be taken into
consideration and petitioners are entitled to Rs.77,000/-
under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10%
enhancement thereon), as per the guidelines
formulated by the Honourable Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others 1 and Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another 2.
22. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited 1st supra), 40%
(Rs.1,200/-) towards future prospects can duly be added
thereto. Thus, the annual income of the deceased comes to
Rs.50,400/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/- x 12 being 40%
towards future prospects). Since there are four dependents,
after deducting 1/4th (Rs.12,600/-) towards personal
expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the
Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma case (cited
2nd supra), the net annual contribution to the family comes
to Rs.37,800/- (Rs.50,400/- - Rs.12,600/-). As seen from
the evidence, the deceased was 29 years at the time of fatal
accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the Apex Court
in Smt. Sarla Varma (supra), the appropriate multiplier is
'17'. Thus, applying the multiplier '17' to the annual loss
2017 ACJ 2700
2 2009 (6) SCC 121
of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.37,800/-, the
total 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs.6,42,600/-
(Rs.37,800 x 17). In addition to that, petitioners are
entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads
(Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). In addition
thereof, petitioners No.2 to 4 who are minor children of the
deceased and petitioner No.1 are entitled for Rs.40,000/-
each i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- under the head of 'parental
consortium' as per the decision of the Apex Court in
Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. Thus, in all,
petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,39,600/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred
only).
23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.9,13,500/- is at higher side
and the same is reduced to Rs.8,39,600/-. In so far as
interest is concerned, the compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum from the date of
(2018) 18 SCC 130
petition till the date of realization. The compensation
amount, if not deposited by respondents, shall be
deposited within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit,
petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same without
furnishing any security, subject to payment of deficit Court
fee. Petitioners shall pay deficit Court fee for Rs.39,600/-
only. If the deficit Court fee is already deposited by
petitioners for the compensation amount granted by the
Tribunal, the difference Court fee shall be refunded to
petitioners, after proper calculation and under proper
acknowledgement.
24. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal reduced
from Rs.9,13,500/- to Rs.8,39,600/-. There shall be no
order as to costs.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 01-MAR-2024
KHRM
