Telangana High Court
The Apsrtc, vs Myana Vani Sree And 4 Others on 21 September, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.321 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Telangana State Road
Transport Corporation (previously, Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation) assailing the order and decree,
dated 27.02.2015 made in M.V.O.P.No.566 of 2011 on the file of
the Chairman, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
Judge Family Court-Cum-Additional District Judge at
Karimnagar (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as
they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of
Myana Laxmaiah (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"),
husband of claimant No.1, father of claimant Nos.2 and 3 and
son of claimant No.4, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred
LNA, J
on 03.01.2011. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the
deceased was proceeding on the Maruthi Zen Car bearing
No.AP-15-R-6982 from Karimnagar to Hyderabad and when he
reached near Gowraram village outskirts near Mars company
at 11.35 hours, one RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-
5290 (hereinafter referred to offending vehicle) being driven by
its driver i.e., respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner at
high speed and dashed the car of the deceased, as a result of
which, the deceased fell down on the road and suffered cardio
respiratory arrest and died on the spot.
4. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 43
years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a Car driver and
used to contribute the same to his family. Due to the sudden
demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their bread winner,
love and affection. Therefore, they filed the claim petition
against the respondents, seeking compensation of Rs.10.00
lakhs.
LNA, J
5. The respondent no.1-driver of the crime vehicle
remained ex parte. The respondent no.2-RTC filed counter
denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of
the deceased and further contended that accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself and
therefore, claim of the petitioners is not maintainable and
finally, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
1) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending motor
vehicle i.e., APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-
5290 driven by its driver ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation ? If so, to what amount and from
whom?
3) To what relief ?
7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the
petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5
LNA, J
were marked. On behalf of respondent no.2-RTC, RW.1 was
examined and no documents were marked.
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and
material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver and awarded total compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
9. Heard Sri Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for Sri
G.Srinivas, learned standing counsel for appellant and Sri
V.Ravi Kumar, leaned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Perused the record.
10. The learned standing counsel for RTC has contended that
though the deceased was aged about 45 years and working as
driver, the Tribunal has erroneously took future prospects at
30%. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the appeal by
reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
LNA, J
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants
sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal
contending that on due consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence and the manner of accident and the
avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly awarded a
reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference
by this Court.
12. As regards the quantum of compensation, considering
the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has rightly taken
the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-. However,
as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for RTC
as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1,
since the deceased was aged about 43 years, the claimants are
entitled to addition of 25% towards future prospects.
Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,500/-
(Rs.6,000/- + Rs.1,500/-). Since there are four dependants,
2017 ACJ 2700
LNA, J
after deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of
the deceased, the net monthly income that was being
contributed to the family of the deceased comes to Rs.5,625/-.
As the age of the deceased was 43 years at the time of the
accident, the appropriate multiplier is '14' as per the decision
reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2.
Adopting multiplier 14, the total loss of dependency works out
to Rs.9,45,000/- (Rs.5,625/- x 12 x 14). Further, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded reasonable Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/-
towards funeral expenditure and the same needs no
interference by this Court. Thus, in all, the claimants are
entitled to Rs.10,05,000/- towards just compensation.
13. At this stage, the learned standing counsel for RTC
submitted that the claimants claimed only a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
LNA, J
compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the
claim made, which is impermissible under law.
14. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another 3, the Apex
Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 4 held
as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under
Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in
Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, in the absence of
any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason
any competent Court is entitled to award higher
compensation to the victim of an accident."
15. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to
above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what
has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a
beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the
claimants is a paramount consideration, the Courts should
always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a
just and reasonable extent.
(2011) 10 SCC 756
2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
LNA, J
16. In the result, the Appeal is disposed of and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.10,05,000/- which shall carry interest at
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date
of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally.
The appellant-RTC herein is directed to ensure that the entire
amount of compensation is deposited within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly
adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by them. On such
deposit, the respondents 1 to 4 herein are entitled to withdraw
the entire compensation amount as per the proportion
awarded by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 21.09.2024
Ssm/kkm
