Telangana High Court
Golla Nagamani , Muthyam Nagamani vs The Telangana State Road Transport ... on 24 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.623 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellants/
claimants seeking enhancement of compensation being
un-satisfied with the compensation awarded by the
learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -
cum - VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad
(hereinafter referred to 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.437 of
2014, on 27.08.2019, wherein, the learned Tribunal has
pleased to partly allow the petition and awarded an
amount of Rs.9,66,000/- with proportionate future
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till the date of actual deposit payable by
respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, who are jointly and
severally liable to pay the same.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.04.2014
while the deceased was proceeding towards Kondapur
NNR,J
MACMA.No.623 of 2020
village on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-25-H-9605 and
one Ambriya was travelling as pillion rider, when they
reached near Hanuman Statue on the outskirts of
Kondapoor village, the Driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-
10-Z-4448 came in opposite direction in rash and
negligence manner with high speed and dashed the
deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down and the
said bus ran over him and he died on the spot. Police,
Thadvai have also registered a Crime bearing No.66 of
2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A
and 337 of IPC against driver of aforesaid crime vehicle. A
charge sheet was also filed by the Police stating that the
said accident was occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e.,
RTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-4448.
3. The case of appellants - claimants is that the
deceased was hale and healthy and earning
Rs.20,000/- per month by raising commercial crops in
his 10 acres of agricultural land and was also doing milk
NNR,J
business as he is having 15 she buffalos. Due to the said
accident, appellants being the dependents on the income
of the deceased lost their dependency. As such, they filed
petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. Respondents - Corporation filed counter denying
the averments made in the petition contending that the
said accident occurred was not due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Driver of said RTC bus and it is
also denied about the age, income and avocation of the
deceased. Therefore, they are not entitled to pay any
compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Basing on the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed
the following issues:
1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of APSRTC bus baring No.AP-10-Z-
4448 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation?
3. To what relief?
NNR,J
6. In order to prove the claim, on behalf of claimants,
the claimants were examined PW.1 and 2 and got marked
Exs.A-1 to A-7 i.e., certified copies of FIR, Charge Sheet,
inquest, Post Mortem Examination report, pattedar pass
books and Motor Vehicle Inspector report. On behalf of
respondents, RW-1 was examined and got marked Ex.B-1
certified copy of Judgement in C.C.No.236 of 2014 on the
file of learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class
(Mobile), Kamareddy.
7. After going into the merits of the case and after
considering the entire oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, leaned Tribunal came to the conclusion
that the said accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Driver of RTC bus bearing
No.AP-10-Z-4448. The learned Tribunal was pleased to
partly allow the petition and awarded an amount of
Rs.9,66,000/- with proportionate future interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the
date of actual deposit payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2
NNR,J
therein, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the
same.
8. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the appellants /
claimants have preferred the present M.A.C.M.A. on the
following grounds:
The contention of the appellants - claimants before
this Court is that the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal is very meager as it is a case of death.
Though the claimants able to place the evidence with
regard to age and income of the deceased i.e., 35 years
and Rs.20,000/- per month, learned Tribunal wrongly
fixed notional income of deceased as Rs.5,000/- per
month only, on which amount the loss of earnings of
deceased was calculated. Therefore, the present
M.A.C.M.A.
9. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for appellants - claimants and Ms.NVS.
NNR,J
Janaki, learned counsel representing Sri R. Anurag,
learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC.
10. Perused the entire material placed on record and
the records submitted by the learned Tribunal.
11. The main contention of the appellants - claimants
before this Court is that the learned Tribunal did not
choose to consider the income of the deceased at
Rs.20,000/- per month though he was aged about
35 years and was raising the commercial crops in his
10 acres of land and that he was also doing milk
business and he was having 15 buffalos. Learned counsel
appearing for the appellants further contended that to
prove the income of the deceased appellants - claimants
filed pattedaar passbooks of claimant No.1 under Exs.A-5
and A-6. But there is no other proof to show that the
deceased was also possessed 15 she buffalos and the
deceased was doing agriculture in his 10 acres of land
and also milk business as alleged by the claimants.
NNR,J
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
further pointed out that in spite of filing Exs.A-5 and A-6
learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that monthly
income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month that too
without any basis.
13. On contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondents pointed out that Exs.A-5 and A-6 are the
pattedar passbooks of claimant No.1 and the same are
not in the name of deceased, therefore, petitioners -
claimants have not filed any documentary evidence to
show that the deceased was having certain agricultural
lands, where commercial crops were raised. In view of the
same, it is clearly established that there is no proof to
show that the deceased was holding any such agriculture
lands as contended by the appellants - claimants and
learned Tribunal has rightly held that in absence of any
proof to show that the deceased was possessing certain
agriculture lands in his name and on proper analysis and
NNR,J
considering the ground realities the learned Tribunal has
fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-
per month. Basing of the said income
learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation in
respect of future prospects, which needs no interference
and the same appears to be the proper and just.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants - claimants has
disputed about the quantum of compensation which is
awarded under the conventional heads and also the
application of multiplier basing on the age of the
deceased. Learned Tribunal granted conventional heads
by following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi1. Therefore, this Court finds no
interference with the same.
15. Age of the deceased at the time of marriage was 35
years. Basing on the age of the deceased i.e., 35 years at
1 2018 (10) SC 450
NNR,J
the time of accident learned Tribunal has applied
multiplier '16' as per Column No.4 of the schedule
prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation 2., which also does not
require any interference. As there is no dispute regarding
the amounts awarded under the other Heads as such
there is nothing left to interfere.
16. Considering the entire material placed on record
and also considering the rival contentions of both the
parties, I do not see any ground being made out to
interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal and
this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
February 24, 2025
PN
2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
NNR,J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
February 24, 2025
PN
