Telangana High Court

The Apsrtc, And Another vs Sohavani Devi, And 3 Others on 16 April, 2025

                                 1


      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

               M.A.C.M.A.NO.101 & 260 OF 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

08.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.2902 of 2016 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on

27.05.2016 at about 12:00 p.m., while the deceased was going on

TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP-29BT-4335 from Malakpet towards

Dilsukhnagar, and when he reached near Moosarambagh X-Roads,

the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-946 driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the

motor bike of the deceased from behind, due to which the deceased

fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and

succumbed to injuries while being shifted to hospital. Thus, the

petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 and 2 have filed counter denying the

occurrence of accident and also the averments with regard to the

age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended ETD,J MACMA No.101_260_2021

that the driver of the RTC Bus was not negligent in causing the

accident and that the deceased himself was negligent.

5. Based on the above rival pleadings, the Tribunal has framed

the following issues:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased Dharmaram Kumavath, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing Registration No.AP-29Z-946, by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4

and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

was examined, but no documents were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- with an interest @ 9% per annum.

Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the MACMA.No.101 of

2021 is filed by RTC and MACMA.No.260 of 2021 is filed by the

claimants.

8. Heard Sri Kallakuri Srinivas Rao, learned Standing Counsel

for APSRTC, appearing for the RTC and Sri Pallati Chandra Mouli,

learned counsel for the claimants.

ETD,J MACMA No.101_260_2021

9. The learned counsel for the RTC has submitted that the

Tribunal has erred in awarding exorbitant amount under various

heads without following any principles of assessment. He further

argued that there was no negligence on part of the bus driver and

that he was never rash and negligent. He further contended that

the deceased himself contributed to the accident, while the Bus

has stopped at red signal, the deceased has negligently started his

vehicle and hit against the bus. He further argued that the

Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/-

without their being any proof and further awarded huge amount

under various heads. He therefore, prayed to reduce the

compensation granted by the Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand has

submitted that the RTC Bus dashed the motor bike from behind at

the red signal and that the manner in which the accident has

occurred itself proves the rash and negligence of the bus driver. He

further submitted that the deceased used to run a Kirana and

General Store and is also a distributor of a Tea Company, and also

was a Real Estate Agent and thus, out of these multifarious

business activities, he used to earn more than Rs.50,000/- per

month and thus prayed to take the income of the deceased as

atleast Rs.25,000/- per month and award more compensation.

ETD,J MACMA No.101_260_2021

11) Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the

points for determination:-

1. Whether the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-946 was not rash and negligent in causing the accident on 27.05.2016 resulting in the death of the deceased-

Dharmaram Kumavath?

2. Whether there was any contributory negligence of the deceased in the occurrence of the accident ?

3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

4. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

5. To what relief?

12. Point Nos.1 & 2:

a) PW3 is an eye witness to the accident. His evidence reveals

that while he was standing at Moosarambagh X-Roads, he noticed

that a TVS XL Moped bearing No.AP-29-BT-4335 which was

proceeding from Malakpet towards Dilsukhnagar, was hit by the

RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-946 which was proceeding in the

same direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

at a high sped and that the said bus hit the bike of the deceased

from behind, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous

injuries.

b) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1 and charge sheet under Ex.A2

also reveals that the Police after investigation have filed the charge ETD,J MACMA No.101_260_2021

sheet against the driver of the RTC Bus. Thus, based on the

evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.A1 and A2, it is held that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of

the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29Z-946 and that there is no

contributory negligence on part of the deceased.

Hence Point No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

13. Point No.3:-

c) PW1 has asserted that her husband used to run Kirana Shop

and that he was also Distributor of Tea. Ex.A8 to A10 are filed in

support of her contention. Ex.A9 is a set of Tea Purchasing Bills

from M/s Eagle and Trading Company by the deceased which

reveals that he used to purchase Tea Powder in bulk from M/s

Eagle and Trading Company and then, used to sell the same. Thus,

it is elicited that he was an agent to the said company. Ex.A10 is

the VAT Certificate issued by the Commercial Tax Department in

favour of M/s Eagle and Trading Company in which the name of

the deceased is also shown as purchaser. Thus, it is revealed that

he used to purchase a bulk quantity of Tea from M/s Eagle and

Trading Company. Photographs are filed under Ex.A8 showing the

Kirana and General Stores and also the Office of his Real Estate

Business. The photographs under Ex.A8 do not aid the petitioner

to prove the income of the deceased. Ex.A7 is the Pan Card of the ETD,J MACMA No.101_260_2021

deceased. By going through Ex.A9 and A10, it is revealed that he

was a Tea Distributor and through the above said evidence, it is

held that the deceased was a Businessman. The petitioners have

stated that the deceased used to earn Rs.50,000/- per month, and

the Tribunal has assessed the income as Rs.10,000/- per month.

Based on the evidence on record, the income assessed by the

Tribunal as Rs.10,000/- per month appears to be quite reasonable.

d) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1, 25% of the

income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the

deceased is aged 42 years, adding 25% towards future prospects

i.e., 10,000+2,500 would give Rs.12,500/- per month, which

comes to Rs.12,500/- x 12 = Rs.1,50,000/- per annum.

e) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore,

1/3rd deduction need to be made to his income towards personal

expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/-

(-) Rs.50,000/-).

f) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A4

reveals the age of the deceased as 42 years. No other proof is filed

in this regard. Therefore, the age as revealed under Ex.A4 is taken

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.101_260_2021

into consideration. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to

the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2. The deceased

being aged 42 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '14'.

Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,00,000/-.

h) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss

of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and

the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.

h) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3, the Apex Court has elaborately

discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has

further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children

of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore,

in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each

towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount

under this head would be Rs.1,45,200/- instead of Rs.40,000/-.

Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded.

i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are

entitled is calculated as Rs.15,81,500/- while the Tribunal has

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.101_260_2021

awarded Rs.15,50,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners

are entitled for enhancement of compensation.

Hence, point No.3 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.4:-

In view of the finding arrived at Point No.3, it is held that the

Order and Decree of the Tribunal needs to be modified, enhancing

the compensation from Rs.15,50,000/- to 15,81,500/-.

Point No.4 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.5:-

In the result, MACMA.No.101 of 2021 filed by RTC is

dismissed, while MACMA.No.260 of 2021 filed by the claimants is

partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 08.05.2020

passed in M.V.O.P.No.2902 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad enhancing

the compensation from 15,50,000/- to 15,81,500/- and the

enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the

interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The respondent

Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with

accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if ETD,J MACMA No.101_260_2021

any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled

to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security.