Telangana High Court
Telengana State Road Transport ... vs Ammera Bhanu on 11 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2018
AND
M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-The Court of Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.88
of 2015, dated 15.09.2017, M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2018 is filed by
the Appellants/claim petitioners seeking enhancement of
compensation amount and the respondents/RTC in the said
M.V.O.P. preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2018 seeking to set-aside
the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. Since both the appeals
arise out of the common Award passed in M.V.O.P.No.88 of 2015,
dated 15.09.2017, they have been dealt with together and being
disposed of by way of this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that initially, petitioners filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Late Mohd.Yakub
Ali (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on the intervening night of
MGP,J
Macma Nos.347 and 517 of 2018
01/02.09.2014. It is stated by the petitioners that on the
intervening night of 01/02-09-2014, when the deceased was
returning to his residence on his bicycle and when reached near
Anurag Defence Gate, Santhoshnagar at about 00.30 A.M., at that
time, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-6575 of Bandlaguda
Depot came at a high speed from Chandrayanagutta side towards
DRDL and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell
down from his bicycle and sustained grievous Head injury and
other serious injuries all over the body. Immediately after the
accident, the deceased was shifted to Owaisi Hospital for treatment
and later to Osmania General Hospital and while undergoing
treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Santhoshnagar Police
Station, registered a case in Crime No.263 of 2014 under Section
304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of Crime APSRTC Bus
bearing No.AP-11Z-6575.
5. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the
deceased was hale and healthy and used to earn a sum of
Rs.12,000/- per month by working as Head Cook. Due to sudden
demise of the deceased, the petitioners were put to severe
hardship, mental agony and became destitute and hence filed
MGP,J
Macma Nos.347 and 517 of 2018
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with
interest against the respondents.
6. Respondents/APSRTC filed its counter disputing the
averments made in the claim petition including, manner of
accident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligence of
driver, age, occupation and income of the deceased and contended
that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence
prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
7. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting
trial:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred
resulting in death of deceased-Mohd.Yakub Ali to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus
bearing No.AP-11Z-6575 ?
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?
8. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 & 2
were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of
respondents/RTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
MGP,J
Macma Nos.347 and 517 of 2018
9. After considering the evidence and documents available on
record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition
by awarding compensation of Rs.8,32,000/- along with interest @
9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
payable by both the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
Aggrieved by the said Award, M.A.C.M.A.347 of 2018 is filed by the
claim petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation and
M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2017 is filed by respondents/RTC seeking to
set-aside the Award passed by the learned Tribunal.
10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri T.Viswarupa Chary,
learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners in
M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2018 as well as Sri R.Anurag, learned
Standing Counsel for Respondents-RTC/appellants in
M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2018.
11. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellants in
M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2018 are that the learned Tribunal erred in
taking very meager amount towards the income of the deceased
though he used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month by working as
Head Cook in a Dhabha and ought to have awarded interest @ 18%
instead of 9% and hence requested to allow the appeal by
enhancing the compensation amount. Learned counsel, in support
of his contentions, also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
MGP,J
Macma Nos.347 and 517 of 2018
Supreme Court in the case between RAJAN V/S ANIL VARCHESE &
ANR 1 wherein, the monthly earnings for a person working as Cook
were considered @ Rs.9,000/-
12. On the other hand, the contentions of the learned counsel for
respondents/appellants/RTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2018 are
that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding excess amounts under
conventional heads and also erred in granting excess interest @ 9%
per annum on the compensation amount. It also contended that
the Tribunal erred in considering future prospects @ 15% in the
absence of documentary proof and hence requested to allow the
Appeal by setting aside the Award passed by the learned Tribunal.
13. Now the points that emerge for consideration are,
(i) Whether the Award passed by the learned Tribunal
requires interference of this Court?
(ii) Whether the claim petitioners are entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
Points:-
14. This Court has perused the evidence and documents
available on record. Petitioner No.1/wife of the deceased examined
herself as PW1. She reiterated the contents made in the claim
petition and deposed about the manner of accident. As she is not
an eye witness to the incident, she got examined PW2, an eye-
2022 Law Suit (SC) 1532
MGP,J
Macma Nos.347 and 517 of 2018
witness to the incident. PW2 in his evidence deposed that on the
intervening night of 01/02-09-2014, when the deceased was
proceeding on his bicycle in order to go to his residence and when
reached near Anurag Defence Gate, Santoshnagar, the driver of
RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-6575 drove the Bus in a rash and
negligent manner at high speed and dashed the bicycle of the
deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down from his bicycle and
sustained grievous Head injury and other serious injuries all over
the body and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the
injuries on the same day. Immediately after the accident, he
reported the matter to Police and the Police of Santhoshnagar
Police Station registered a case in Crime No.263 of 2014,
conducted detailed investigation and filed charge sheet against the
driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-6575.
15. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.A1 is the
FIR registered by Police of Santhoshnagar Police Station in Crime
No.263 of 2014 under sections 304-A and 337 of IPC, conducted
investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A4 against the driver
of RTC Bus Bearing No.AP-11-Z-6575.Ex.A2 is the inquest report.
Ex.A3 is the post-mortem examination report which discloses that
the cause of death of the deceased was due to "Head injury blunt
injury to chest". Ex.A5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector which
MGP,J
Macma Nos.347 and 517 of 2018
discloses that the occurrence of accident was not due to any
mechanical defect in the vehicle.
16. Therefore, from the above oral and documentary evidence
and in the absence of any contra evidence, it can be safely
presumed that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries
sustained by him in an accident that occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus Bearing No.AP-11-Z-
6575. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for
appellants/RTC in M.A.C.M.A.517 of 2018 that the occurrence of
accident was due to negligence on part of the deceased is
unsustainable.
17. As far as quantum of compensation in the impugned
judgment is concerned, learned counsel for appellants/claim
petitioners in MACMA.347 of 2018 contended that the learned
Tribunal took very meager towards the income of the deceased
though the deceased used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month by
working as Head Cook in a Dhabha and relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 Law Suit (SC)1532
between RAJAN V/S ANIL VARCHESE & ANR wherein the monthly
salary for a Cook is taken as Rs.9,000/-
18. In the instant case, though PW1/wife of the deceased
contended that the deceased used to work as Head Cook in
MGP,J
Macma Nos.347 and 517 of 2018
M/s.Classic Dhaba, Medchal and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per
month, but she did not file any documentary proof in support of
her version. Hence, the learned Tribunal taking into account the
date of accident, age of the deceased and considering the fact that
the deceased was a skilled employee, in the absence of
documentary proof, took his monthly income @ Rs.6,000/-which
this Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to
interfere with the same.
19. A perusal of quantum of compensation awarded in the
impugned judgment discloses that the learned Tribunal
considering the occupation of the deceased as permanent,
considered future prospects @ 15%. But the occupation of the
deceased cannot be considered as permanent, more particularly, in
the absence of any documentary proof. Hence, the occupation of
the deceased is considered as self employed. Thus, the future
prospects to be considered for self-employed person aged between
50-60 years is 10% as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case between National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others 2. After addition of 10% towards future prospects,
then the net future monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.6,600/-. Since the number of dependants are '2', if 1/3rd is
2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
Macma Nos.347 and 517 of 2018
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then the net
monthly income comes to Rs.3,300/-. Since the age of the
deceased as per inquest and post-mortem reports was 55 years,
hence, considering the same, the appropriate multiplier is '11' as
per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation 3. Therefore, the total loss of income
on account of the death of the deceased comes to Rs.4,35,600/-.
Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection
and Rs.25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses
which this Court finds it to be excess and hereby reduce the same
to Rs.77,000/- by relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay
Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 2700). Thus, the appellants are
entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,12,600/-.
20. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned,
this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 4, reduces the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per
annum.
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
Macma Nos.347 and 517 of 2018
21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2018 filed by claimants,
is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2018 filed by RTC is partly-
allowed by reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
from Rs.8,32,200/- to Rs.5,12,600/- along with interest @ 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall
be no order as to costs.
22. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.11.02.2025
ysk
