Telangana High Court

Siddagoni Sai Teja vs The Managing Director on 10 January, 2025

          HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.344 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2016 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1567 of 2010, on the file of the Court of XIII Additional

Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court at Hyderabad,

petitioner No.1 in the said M.V.O.P. preferred the present Appeal

seeking grant of compensation and he is declared as major vide

orders dated 17.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2019.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant No.1 hereinafter

be referred as claim petitioner as arrayed before the learned Trial

Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who

are the son and mother-in-law of Smt.Siddagoni Prameela,

W/o.Danaiah, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1989 and Rule 475/1B of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989

claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of the

deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.01.2010

at about 12.00 p.m. As stated by the petitioners, on 11.01.2010

at about 12.00 Noon, when the deceased was intending to get into

the Bus from the front door which is meant for women class to

board at Laskarguda Bus Stop, the driver of the said Bus without

observing the deceased getting into the bus, drove the Bus on the

signal of the Conductor. As such, the deceased fell down there and

MGP,J

her both legs were run over by the front left wheel and also left rear

wheels of the Bus and she sustained grievous injuries.

Immediately, she was shifted to Indus Hospital where the injuries

sustained to her were found to be grievous in nature and her left

leg was also amputate.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Hayathnagar Police Station

registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2010 under Section 337 of IPC

against the APSRTC Bus. It is stated by the petitioners that the

deceased was aged 40 years and used to do Tailoring and other

business and spent more than an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-

towards her treatment and due to the sudden death of the

deceased, the petitioners were unable to maintain house and her

children were doing labour work by discontinuing studies in

private school. Hence, filed a petition claiming compensation of

Rs.7,00,000/- against the respondents 1 to 3.

5. Respondent Nos.1 & 3/APSRTC and Oriental Insurance

Company, filed their counters denying the averments made in the

claim petition including, manner of accident, age, avocation,

earning capacity, medical expenditure incurred, involvement,

negligence of driver of crime bus and contended that the claim of

compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to

dismiss the claim against them.

MGP,J

6. Based on the pleadings made by the parties, the learned

Trial Court had framed the following issues for trial:-

i. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased-Siddagoni Prameela due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (Bus (hired) bearing registration No.AP-29TA-499) by its driver?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation? If so, from whom and if so, to what extent?

iii. To what relief?

7. Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to

3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were got marked. No oral or

documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

8. Since the petitioners failed to file any single document viz.,

Aadhar card, Voter card and other residence proof showing that

they are the legal heirs of the deceased, the learned Trial Court

dismissed the claim petition by giving liberty to the petitioners to

file legal heir certificate obtained from the MRO or any other

concerned Authorities. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the

present Appeal by the claim petitioners.

9. Heard arguments of Sri Chandraiah Somarapu, learned

counsel for Appellants, Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for

Respondent No.1/RTC and Sri N.J.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel

representing Sri N.Harinath, learned Standing Counsel on record

representing Respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

MGP,J

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

as stated in the grounds of Appeal is that the Court below had

erroneously dismissed the claim petition of the petitioners on

technical grounds even though the claimants adduced necessary

oral and documentary evidence on their behalf viz., Ex.A2-Inquest

report and Ex.A5-Charge sheet showing that petitioner No.1 is the

adopted son of the deceased. He also contended that the Court

below erred in directing the appellant to get legal heir certificate

from the MRO which is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court reported in SCC 2009 (9) S.C. Page No.240 and ALD 2004 (3)

A.P. Page No.692 and hence prayed to allow the appeal by

awarding compensation amount.

11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1

& 3 contended that the learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed

the claim petition of the petitioners as they failed to produce

sufficient documentary proof evidencing that they are the legal

heirs of the deceased and interference of this Court is

unwarranted.

12. Now the points that emerges for determination are,

(i) Whether the Judgment of the learned Trial Court requires interference of this Court?

(ii) Whether the appellant is entitled for compensation?

MGP,J

POINTS:-

13. Coming to the facts of the case, it is pertinent to state that

there is no dispute about the death of the deceased in a road traffic

accident. Further, a perusal of the record shows that on behalf of

the petitioners PWs 1 to 3 were examined. PW1, an eye witness to

the incident, deposed in his evidence that on 11.01.2010 at about

12.00 noon, in order to go to Fruit Market, near L.B.Nagar,

Hyderabad, himself and the deceased reached the Bus-stop and he

got into the bus from Gents entrance door whereas, the deceased

entered from ladies entrance door on front left side of the driver.

At that time, the driver, without observing the deceased getting into

the bus completely, started the Bus, due to which, the deceased

fell down back-wise stretching her legs beneath the Bus. As a

result, both of the legs of the deceased were crushed. Immediately,

the deceased was shifted into Indus Hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad

and her right leg got amputated and finally, she died on

22.02.2010 while undergoing treatment.

14. PW2/son of the deceased and petitioner No.1 in the claim

petition deposed in his evidence that himself, his paternal

grandmother (petitioner No.2) and the deceased used to live under

one roof and were all dependents on the income of his deceased-

mother and due to her sudden death, they lost their bread winner

and became penniless and destitute and hence filed claim petition

seeking compensation against the respondents 1 to 3.

MGP,J

15. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not

filed any document showing that the deceased Prameela and

Dhanaiah are his parents. He also denied the suggestion that he is

son of brother of Dhanaiah.

16. PW3, Doctor in Indus Hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad,

deposed in his evidence that the deceased was treated in their

Hospital and amputation was done to her right leg below knew.

The records further disclose that her left leg had also suffered with

crush injuries and Ex.A9-Death Summary was issued by their

Hospital. He also stated that as per Ex.A3, the cause of death of

the deceased was due to Septicemia and also secondary crush

injury of both the legs.

17. On behalf of Respondent No.3/Insurance Company,

RW1,Deputy Manager of Oriental Insurance Company was

examined. He deposed in his evidence that the crime Bus bearing

No.AP-29-TA-499 was insured with their company and

Ex.B1/Insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident

which covers the risk of third party. He also got marked Ex.B2-

Copy of orders passed in I.A.No.1053 & 1054 of 2014.

18. Apart from oral evidence, the petitioners also got marked

Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf. A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that Police

of Hayathnagar Police Station registered a case in Crime No.15 of

2010, under Section 337 IPC, conducted investigation and filed

MGP,J

charge sheet under Ex.A5 against the driver of crime Bus. Ex.A2 is

the inquest report. Ex.A3 is the Post Mortem Examination report

wherein the cause of death of the deceased was due to "Fracture

Pelvis Associated with crush injury of both legs". Ex.A4 is the

Scene and place of offence panchanama. Ex.A6 are the phographs

showing the amputation of the deceased. Ex.A7 is the final bill

issued by INDUS Hospital. Ex.A8 are the bunch of investigation

reports. Ex.A9 is the Death Summary issued by INDUS Hospital.

Ex.A10 is the Insurance Policy issued by respondent No.3 towards

respondent No.2 for the crime Bus covering the third party risk.

19. Therefore, from the above oral and documentary evidence,

it is clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-29-TA-499 which

resulted into the death of the deceased and the policy was in force

as on the date of accident.

20. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is

that the Court below had erroneously dismissed the claim petition

of the appellant on the sole ground that he is not a legal heir of the

deceased to claim compensation.

21. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer Section 2(11) of C.P.C.

which reads as under:-

"According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative"

means a person who in law represents the estate of a

MGP,J

deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, i.e. under Section 2(1)(g)."

22. It is also pertinent to refer to the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in Custodian of Branches of BANCO

National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique 1 wherein, the Hon'ble

Apex Court held as under:-

"Legal representative" as defined in Civil Procedure Code which was admittedly applicable to the proceedings in the suit, means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. The definition is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only instead it stipulates a person who may or may not be heir, competent to inherit the property of the deceased but he should represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative".

23. It is also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gujarat State

Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and

AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 1589

MGP,J

Anr 2 that a legal representative is one who suffers on account of

death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not

necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.

24. It is also pertinent to refer to the recent decision of the

Gujarat High Court in the case between Bajaj Allianz General

Insurance Limited Vs.Thakor Jayantibhai Piraji 3 wherein, the Court at

Paras 11.1 and 11.2 held as under:-

11.1 The law is well settled that the Motor Accident Act is a beneficial legislation enacted with the object to provide monetary relief to the victim or their family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time in its decisions referred to above has held that the term 'legal representative' is required to be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicle Act and the interpretation should not be confined only to the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. The Act therefore calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the underlying purpose of the enactment and fulfillment of its legislative intent.

11.2 To maintain a claim petition it is sufficient for the claimant to establish that there is loss of dependency and every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a person in a motor vehicle accident have the remedy for realization of compensation.

25. Hence, from the above referred decisions, it is made clear

that any person who represents the estate of the deceased person

AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 1690

2022 ACJ 902

MGP,J

even without title either as executors or administrators in

possession of the estate of the deceased, would be covered by the

expression "legal representative".

26. In the instant case, the appellant herein, who used to live

along with the deceased under one roof and who performed funeral

rituals, is purely dependant on the earnings of the deceased and

due to her sudden death, he discontinued his studies and doing

labour work and unable to maintain his life. Hence, filed claim

petition seeking compensation against the respondents. Though

the respondents contended that since the appellant failed to

produce documentary proof evidencing that he is the legal heir of

the deceased, he is not entitled for compensation. But this Court,

by relying upon the above referred decisions, considers that the

appellant is entitled for compensation. Further, a perusal of

inquest report shows that the appellant is the S/o.Late Danaiah

and the deceased is the wife of said Danaiah. Further, the list of

witnesses in the charge sheet also reveal that the appellant is the

S/o.Danaiah and the deceased and is entitled for compensation.

27. Coming to awarding of compensation, though it is contended

by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased used to

earn Rs.8,000/- per month by doing Tailoring work and other

business, there is no evidence, either oral or documentary, to prove

the income and avocation of the deceased. Hence, this Court, by

MGP,J

relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Latha

Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 4, wherein it is held that even though

there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be

reasonably estimated, is inclined to fix the monthly income of the

deceased @ Rs.4,500/- by considering the age, avocation and year

of accident. As the age of the deceased at the time of accident was

45 years, he is entitled for addition of 25% towards future

prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 5. Hence, the future monthly income

of the deceased comes to Rs.5,625/-. As the appellant herein is the

sole dependent of the deceased, upon applying standard deduction

of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, then

the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,750/- and

the annual income comes to Rs.45,000/-. Since the deceased was

45 years old at the time of the accident, after applying appropriate

multiplier is '14' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court

in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 6, then the total

loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,30,000. Apart from this, this

Court, by relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & others (2017 ACJ

2700) is inclined to award a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards

(2001) 8 SCC 197

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP,J

conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and

funeral expenses. Thus in all, the appellant herein is entitled for a

total compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- which calculation is detailed

as under:-

  S.No.            Name of           Amount awarded by
                   the Head          this Court
      1            Monthly           Rs.4,500/-
                   income of
                   the
                   deceased
      2.           Addition          Rs.5,625/-
                   of future
                   prospects
                   @ 25%
      2            Amount arrived    Rs.3,750/-
                   after deduction
                   made towards
                   personal expenses
                   of the deceased
      3            Loss of           Rs.6,30,000/-
                   dependency
      4            Conventional      Rs.70,000/-
                   heads
                   TOTAL             Rs.7,00,000/-
                   COMPENSATION

28. So far as interest on the compensation amount is

concerned, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 7,

hereby award interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of realization.

29. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by awarding

compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per

72013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP,J

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The

Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation amount within a period of two months from the date