Telangana High Court
Apsrtc, Hyderabad vs K Rajaiah, Karimnagar Dist And 1 Other on 22 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
62 OF 2016
J U D G M E N T:
Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 17.06.2015
passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.772 of 2012
(impugned Order) by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge
at Karimnagar (for short "the Tribunal"), appellant-RTC
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 filed a petition under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
for the death of Sri Kotte Venkatesham (hereinafter referred
to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident
that occurred on 11.07.2012. Petitioner is the father of the
deceased.
04. According to petitioner, on 11.07.2012 at about
03:00 PM., the deceased after attending the counseling in
M.A. Telugu at Sathavahana P.G. College, Karimnagar, he
was crossing the road situated under manair bridge, in the
meanwhile RTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 3632 of
Husnabad Depot (herein after referred as 'the crime
vehicle') being driven by respondent No.1-driver in a rash
and negligent manner with high speed from Husnabad to
Karimnagar, dashed the deceased resulting in bleeding
injuries to his head and he died on the spot. The Police,
Karimnagar Traffic registered a case in Crime No.91 of
2012 for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle.
05. According to petitioner, the deceased was aged
29 years and he had a bright future with good academic
qualifications and that he would have got very good job and
earn lakhs of rupees. Due to sudden demise of the
deceased, the petitioner lost his only son and petitioner at
his old age has to lead a destitute life. Therefore, the
petitioner filed claim petition against respondent No.1-
driver of the crime vehicle, respondent No.2 is the
registered owner i.e. RTC, claiming compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/-.
06. Respondents have filed counters denying the
claim of petitioner, denying the manner of accident,
earnings of the deceased. It is further contended that the
accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased and that the compensation claimed by
petitioners is very high and exorbitant and prayed to
dismiss the petition.
07. On behalf of petitioner, PW1 was examined and
got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of respondents, RW1
was examined and no documentary evidence was adduced
on behalf of respondents.
08. Considering the claim of petitioner and
counters filed by respondents and on evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed the
Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding a total
compensation of Rs.06,35,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 7 percent per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization, to be deposited by respondents.
09. Challenging the same, appellant-RTC has
preferred this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. Heard Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-RTC and Sri
Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent-claimant. Perused the material
available on record.
11. The main contention of the learned Standing
Counsel for appellant-RTC is that the learned Tribunal
without proper evidence on record awarded huge
compensation towards compensation which is on higher
side. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal
awarded huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/-
towards conventional heads. Therefore, prayed this Court
to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned Order.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
respondent-claimant 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 passed 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 father of the deceased reiterated
the contents of the claim application. Apart from adducing
oral evidence, PW1 got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1-FIR
discloses that the Police, Karimnagar Traffic registered a
case in Crime No.91 of 2012 for the offence under Section
304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the
crime vehicle and during the course of investigation
inquest and postmortem examination was conducted vide
Exs.A4 and A5 and further prepared Ex.A7-Form No.54
and Ex.A2-crime details form, after completion of
investigation Ex.A3-charge sheet was filed against the
driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A6-Motor Vehicle
Inspector's Report disclose that there are no mechanical
defects in the crime vehicle.
16. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW1 who
reiterated the contents of his counter and deposed that the
deceased tried to commit suicide by falling under a lorry
but when public stopped him, he came and fell under the
crime vehicle. He did not lodge any complaint alleging that
the deceased attempted to commit suicide. Even in the
counter, he did not mention about the deceased attempt to
commit suicide.
17. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the learned Tribunal after evaluating the oral evidence of
PW1, coupled with the documentary evidence available on
record, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the
crime vehicle. Even Ex.A3-charge sheet discloses that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of
the driver of the crime vehicle. Further, the claim
petitioner was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicle Act, as the rash and negligence on the part of the
driver of the crime vehicle is proved, the learned Tribunal
has proceeded to award compensation in accordance with
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the
learned 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. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal considered the
age of the deceased as 29 years and that as the
deceased was non-earning member the learned
Tribunal has taken notional annual income at
Rs.30,000/- and ultimately, granted an amount of
Rs.5,10,000/-. Hence, this Court is not inclined to
interfering with the said finding of the Tribunal.
19. While calculating the final compensation
amount, the learned Tribunal has awarded
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate, love and
affection and dependency etc., and further
awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral charges,
which is against the guidelines formulated by the
Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1. Therefore, the
findings of the learned Tribunal to that effect are hereby set
aside. Hence, petitioner is entitled to Rs.33,000/- under
the conventional heads (Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement
thereon) instead of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
estate, love and affection and dependency etc., and
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral charges, as per settled
principle of law laid down in Pranay Sethi case (cited
supra). Thus, in all, petitioner is entitled for an amount of
Rs.5,43,000/- towards compensation.
20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.06,35,000/- is at
higher side and the same is reduced to Rs.05,43,000/-. 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 petition till the date of realization. The
compensation amount, if not deposited by respondents,
shall be deposited within a period of two (2) months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such
1 2017 ACJ 2700
deposit, petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same without
furnishing any security, subject to payment of deficit Court
fee. Petitioner shall pay deficit Court fee for Rs.43,000/-
only. If the deficit Court fee is already deposited by
petitioner for the compensation amount granted by the
learned Tribunal, the difference Court fee shall be refunded
to petitioner, after proper calculation and under proper
acknowledgement.
21. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal reduced
from Rs.06,35,000/- to Rs.05,43,000/-. There shall be no
order as to costs.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 22 -NOV-2024
KHRM
