Telangana High Court
Apsrtc, Hyderabad And Anr vs Smt.Kistapuram , Ramannagiri Aruna, ... on 5 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2854 OF 2015
AND
M.A.C.M.A.No.2570 OF 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2854 of 2015 filed by A.P.S.R.T.C.
seeking to set-aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and
M.A.C.M.A.No.2570 of 2016 filed by claim petitioners seeking
enhancement of compensation, both are directed against the very
same order dated 11.05.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2170 of 2013,
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XIII
Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court,
Hyderabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they
were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who
are the wife and parents of Late Kistapuram (Ramannagiri)
Satheesh (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased'), filed a petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455
of A.P.M.V. Rules, read with Section 140 of M.V.Act, 1989 against
the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the
death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
25.04.2013 at the outskirts of Timmareddypalli Village on Rajiv
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
Rahadari, Medak District. It is stated by the petitioners that on
25.04.2013 at about 8.15 p.m. near Hotels at the outskirts of
Timmareddypalli Village on Rajiv Rahadari, Medak District, when
the deceased-Satheesh was proceeding slowly towards Venkatapur
(PT) Village of Toopran Mandal, Medak District on extreme left side
of the road on Hero Honda Passion Plus Motorcycle Bearing No.AP-
23H-5711 and when reached near Hotels at the outskirts of
Timmareddypally Village on Rajiv Rahadari, at that time, the driver
of one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-15Z-0031 of Husnabad Depot,
which came from Hyderabad side and proceeding towards Siddipet
side, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner at high
speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the
deceased fell down from his motorcycle and sustained fatal injuries
and multiple fractures on head and other parts of the body and the
motorcycle of the deceased was completely damaged.
Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Siddipet and
after First Aid, he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad
through Ambulance and the Doctors of Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad, upon examining the deceased, declared him as
died.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Kukunoorpally Police
Station, Medak District, registered a case in Crime No.94 of 2013,
under Sections 304-A IPC.
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
5. It is stated by the petitioners that at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged 25 years and was hale, healthy, young,
energetic and was not having any bad habits and also used to earn
a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month by working as Tractor Driver and
contribute all his earnings for maintenance of his family. Due to
untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread
winner and were put to dark. It is also stated by the petitioners
that they have incurred huge amounts towards transportation of
the deceased from place of accident to Hospital and also spent
amounts for cremation and obsequies expenses and etc. Hence,
filed claim petition seeking compensation against the
respondents/RTC.
6. Respondent No.2/Depot Manager of APSRTC filed his
counter denying the averments made in the claim petition
including, manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity,
medical expenditure incurred, involvement of RTC Bus, negligence
of driver of crime bus and further contended that the claim of
compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to
dismiss the claim against it.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues for conducting trial:-
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
(i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death
of deceased-K.Satheesh due to the rash and negligent driving
of RTC bearing No.AP-15Z-0031 by its driver?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and
if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the
respondents?
(iii) To what relief?
8. Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate their claim,
petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1, got examined PW2 and gt
marked Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf. On behalf of
respondents/RTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
9. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and
documents available on record, partly-allowed the claim petition
along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization payable by both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2
jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeals
came to be filed by the APSRTC and the claim petitioners
respectively.
10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri R.Anurag, learned
Standing Counsel for appellants/RTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.2854 of
2015 and Sri Jagathpall Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondents/claim petitioners/appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.2570 of
2016. Perused the record.
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
11. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant/RTC in
M.A.C.M.A.No.2854 of 2015 are that the Tribunal erred in not
considering the fact that the owner and insurer of motorcycle were
not made as parties to the claim petition; it also failed to consider
the fact that the name of PW2, who is an eye witness to the
incident, was not mentioned in the charge sheet, as such, charge
sheet cannot be relied upon to establish the negligence on part of
RTC driver; it also erred in taking the income of the deceased @
Rs.72,000/- per annum and erred in applying multiplier 18 and
also erred in awarding excess amounts under non-conventional
head and therefore requested to allow the Appeal by setting-aside
the order of the learned Tribunal.
12. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for
respondents/appellants in M.A.C.M.A.2570 of 2016 is that the
learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the income of
the deceased by following the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case between Santoshi devi Vs.National Insurance Co. 1 and
Rajan Soni V.Subhashchandra 2 and therefore requested for
enhancement of compensation.
13. Now the points that emerge for determination are,
i. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal
suffers from any irregularity?
2012 ACJ SC 2002
2015 ACJ SC 2418
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
ii. Whether the appellants/claim petitioners are entitled
for enhancement of compensation?
POINTS:-
14. A perusal of the record discloses that petitioner No.1 was
examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents made in the claim
petition. As she is not an eye-witness to the incident, she got
examined PW2. PW2 in his evidence deposed that on 25.05.2013
when he was proceeding from Siddipet to Venkatapur Village on
his motorcycle and when reached outskirts of Timmareddypally
Village on Rajiv Rahadari, at that time, he noticed one RTC Bus
bearing No.AP-15Z-0031 coming in opposite direction and driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and
dashing the motorcycle of the deceased due to which, the rider of
the motorcycle fell down from the motorcycle and sustained
grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Siddipet
by 108 Ambulance and later, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital
where the Doctors declared him as brought dead. He further
stated that the said accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of crime APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-
15Z-0031 and there is no negligence on part of the deceased. He
also stated that Kukunoorpally Police Station registered a case in
Crime NO.94 of 2013, under Section 304-A of IPC against the
driver of crime RTC bus and recorded his statement.
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
15. Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.A1 is the FIR
registered by Kukunoorpally Police Station, Medak District, in
Crime No.94 of 2013, under Section 304-A of IPC, conducted
investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver
of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-15Z-0031. Ex.A3 is the spot
panchanama. Ex.A4 is the inquest report. Ex.A5 is the post-
mortem examination report wherein the cause of death of the
deceased was due to Head injury. Ex.A6 is the Motor Vehicle
Inspector report which discloses that the accident had not
occurred due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. Ex.A7 is the
Driving license of the deceased.
16. Therefore, from the evidence of PW2-eye witness to the
incident coupled with the documentary evidence marked under
Exs.A1 to A6, it is clear that the death of the deceased was due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-
15Z-0031.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant/RTC contended that the
name of PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident, was not
mentioned in the charge sheet. As such, Ex.A2-charge sheet
cannot be relied upon to establish the negligence on part of RTC
driver.
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
18. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Sunita Vs. Rajasthan
State Transport Corporation 3 wherein, when the testimony of
an eyewitness was sought to be impeached, inter alia, on the
ground that his name did not find mention in
the list of witnesses in the charge-sheet, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under:-
"There is nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a witness in
motor accident claim who has not been named in
the list of witnesses in the criminal case. What is essential is
that the opposite party should get a fair opportunity to cross
examine the concerned witness. Once that is done, it
will not be open to them to complain about any prejudice
caused to them. If there was any doubt to be cast on the
veracity of the witness, the same should have come out in cross
examination, for which opportunity was granted to the
respondents by the Tribunal."
19. From the above decision, it is clear that the respondents
should be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness. In
the present case, though PW2, eye witness to the accident, was
cross-examined at length, nothing adverse was elicited to disbelieve
his testimony. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant/RTC that as the name of PW2, an eye witness to the
incident, was not mentioned in the charge sheet, as such, charge
sheet cannot be relied upon, is not tenable.
(2019) SCC Online SC 195
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
20. The other contention of the learned counsel for
appellant/RTC is that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of
the deceased @ Rs.72,000/-.
21. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that though the
petitioners stated that the deceased used to earn a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month by working as Tractor Driver, but they
failed to file any documentary proof evidencing the income of the
deceased and failed to examine any person describing his
occupation and earning capacity. Hence, the learned Tribunal,
taking into consideration the age and occupation of the deceased,
fixed his monthly income @ Rs.6,000/- which this Court finds the
same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the
same.
22. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for
respondents/claim petitioners/appellants in M.A.C.M.A.2570 of
2016 is that the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects
to the income of the deceased.
23. A perusal of quantum of compensation in the impugned
judgment shows that the learned Tribunal without granting future
prospects to the established income, directly deducted 1/3rd and
applied relevant multiplier and calculated compensation. This
Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.Pranay Sethi 4,
is inclined to add 40% towards future prospects to the income of
the deceased for the deceased being below 40 years of age. Then
the net future income of the deceased comes to Rs.8,400/-. As the
number of dependents are 3, if 1/3rd is deducted towards the living
and personal expenses of the deceased, then the net monthly
income comes to Rs.5,600/- and the annual income comes to
Rs.67,200/-. After applying multiplier '18' as the deceased being
25 years at the time of accident, then the total loss of dependency
on account of the death of the deceased comes to Rs.12,09,600/-.
Besides this, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of
Rs.75,000/- under the Head of non-pecuniary damages, which this
Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to
interfere with the same. Hence, the petitioners are awarded with a
total compensation which is calculated as under:-
S.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded Amount awarded
by Tribunal by this Court
1 Monthly income Rs.6,000/- -
2. 40% towards future - Rs.8,400/-
prospects
3. Deduction of 1/3rd Rs.2,000 Rs.5,600/-
towards personal and
living expenses
4. Loss of dependency Rs.8,64,000/- Rs.12,09,600/-.
after application of
2017(6) 170 SC
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
multiplier '18'
5. Conventional Heads Rs.75,000/- -
6. Total compensation Rs.9,39,000/- Rs.12,84,600/-
24. Since the compensation arrived is more than the claim
amount, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh
and others 5 deems fit and proper to allow the Appeal by awarding
compensation of Rs.12,84,600/-, which is more than the claim
amount.
25. As far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. This Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not
inclined to interfere with the same.
26. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2854 of 2015 filed by the
appellants/RTC is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.2570 of 2016 filed
by the appellants/claim petitioners is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.9,39,000/- to Rs.12,84,600/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5%
p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the
date of realization. The appellants/RTC are directed to pay the
enhanced compensation within a period of two months from the
AIR 2003 SC 674
MGP,J
MACMA.Nos. 2854 of 2015 & 2570 of 2016
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the
respondents/claim petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same as
per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by paying
deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.
27. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt. 05.02.2025
ysk
