Telangana High Court
Apsrtc, And Ano vs Y.Lalitha And 3 Ots on 11 March, 2025
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1679 OF 2012
AND
CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.32924 OF 2012 (I.A.No.5 OF 2012)
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2012 passed in O.P
No.663 of 2010, on the file of the Court of I Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge,
Hyderabad, the respondents/RTC in the said O.P. preferred
M.A.C.M.A.1679 of 2012 seeking to allow the Appeal by setting
aside the order of the Trial Court. Also, having not satisfied
with the compensation granted by the Trial Court, the claimants
in O.P. preferred Cross-Objections No.32924 of 2012 (I.A.No.5 of
2012) seeking enhancement of compensation. Since both the
cases arise out of the common order passed by the Trial Court,
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 Trial Court.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioners,
who are the parents, younger sister and younger brother of Late
Mr.Y.Bhanu Prakash (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased')
MGP,J
MACMA.No.1679 of 2012 &
Cross-obj.No.32924 of 2012 (I.A.No.5 of 2012)
filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of
the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
15.05.2009. It is stated by the petitioners that on 15.05.2009,
at about 2.30 P.M, when the deceased was proceeding on his
Honda Activa bearing No.AP-10-AN-4099 from Seethaphal
Mandi to Warasiguda and when reached near House No.12-11-
165, Namalagundu, at that time, one RTC bus bearing No.AP-
9Z-8058 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner came at a high speed and dashed against the
motorcycle of the deceased from backside, due to which, the
deceased fell down and the right rear tyres of the said Bus ran
over the head of the deceased and he died on the spot.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Chilakalaguda Police
station, Secunderabad, registered a case in Crime No.314 of
2009. As the deceased was no more, the petitioners, with a
great hardship, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents/RTC.
5. The respondents/RTC filed a common counter denying
the averments made in the claim petition including, age,
MGP,J
MACMA.No.1679 of 2012 &
Cross-obj.No.32924 of 2012 (I.A.No.5 of 2012)
income, occupation of the deceased and contended that the
compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and hence prayed
to dismiss the claim against it.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court had framed
the following issues for conducting trial:
(i) Whether the accident occurred on 15.05.2009 at about
2.30 p.m. near Seethaphal Mandi, Warasiguda,
Secunderabad, resulting death of Y.Bhanu Prakash? If
so, whether the said accident occur due to the rash and
negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-8058
by its driver?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Before the Trial Court, the petitioners, in order to
substantiate their case, got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got
marked Exs.A1 to A7 on their behalf. On behalf of
respondents/RTC no oral or documentary evidence was
adduced.
8. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence available
on record, partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding
compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
MGP,J
MACMA.No.1679 of 2012 &
Cross-obj.No.32924 of 2012 (I.A.No.5 of 2012)
payable by respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved
by the said finding, the respondents in the said O.P. preferred
M.A.C.M.A.1679 of 2012 seeking to allow the Appeal by setting
aside the order of Trial Court and the claimants therein
preferred Cross-objections petition requesting for enhancement
of compensation amount.
9. Heard arguments submitted by Mr.S.Manish, learned
counsel representing on behalf of Sri R.Anurag, learned
Standing Counsel for appellant/RTC and Sri K.Dhanunjaya
Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors.
Perused the record.
10. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant/RTC
are that the Trial Court erred in considering the income of the
deceased on higher side without any documentary proof and
also erred in applying the multiplier and hence, requested to
set-aside the order of the Trial Court.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/Cross-
objectors contended that the Trial Court failed to award future
prospects to the income of the deceased and failed to consider
the evidence of PW3 and Ex.A6-Salary Certificate and awarded
MGP,J
MACMA.No.1679 of 2012 &
Cross-obj.No.32924 of 2012 (I.A.No.5 of 2012)
meager amount and also awarded less amount under
conventional heads and therefore requested for enhancement of
the same.
12. Now the points that emerge for determination are,
1. Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
2. Whether the cross-objectors are entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
POINTS:-
13. Since there is no dispute regarding occurrence of
accident and death of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to
once again discuss the above said aspects. The only aspect that
has to be considered in the present Appeal is with regard to
quantum of compensation.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant/RTC contended that
the Trial Court erred in fixing the income of the deceased @
Rs.5,000/- per month and also erred in applying relevant
multiplier. Learned counsel also contended that the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranay Sethi 1 may not be taken into account for
(2017 (6) 170 SC)
MGP,J
MACMA.No.1679 of 2012 &
Cross-obj.No.32924 of 2012 (I.A.No.5 of 2012)
retrospective cases as the inception of the said judgment is
2017 whereas the date of accident is 2009.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the cross-
objectors contended that though the petitioners filed Ex.A7-
Salary Certificate showing the income of the deceased, but the
Trial Court, without considering the same, fixed meager amount
towards the income of the deceased as well as conventional
heads. Learned counsel also contended that since Motor
Vehicle Act is beneficial legislation and should be interpreted in
favor of the affected persons, the claimants are entitled for just
compensation" one which is fair and reasonable on the basis of
the evidence adduced irrespective of the amount claimed.
16. A perusal of Ex.A7-Salary Certificate issued by Sri
Ramchandra Rice Stores clearly discloses that the deceased
worked in the above stores since 3 years prior to accident and
he has been paid monthly salary of Rs.7,500/-. Therefore,
considering the said Salary Certificate and also the evidence of
PW3, who deposed that he used to pay salary to the deceased @
Rs.7,500/- per month, this Court is inclined to interfere with
MGP,J
MACMA.No.1679 of 2012 &
Cross-obj.No.32924 of 2012 (I.A.No.5 of 2012)
the finding of the learned Trial Court and hereby fix the monthly
income of the deceased @ Rs.7,500/-.
17. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the
learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the income
of the deceased. Hence, this Court, considering that the
M.V.Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and should be
interpreted in favor of the affected persons and the applicants
should not be precluded from grant of just compensation, this
Court, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranay Sethi 2 , is inclined to
award 40% towards future prospects to the income of the
deceased considering the age of the deceased as 23 years as per
charge sheet, inquest and post mortem reports. Thus, the
future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.10,500/-.
Since the deceased being Bachelor, if 50% is deducted towards
his personal and living expenses had he been alive, then his net
monthly income comes to Rs.5,250/- and the annual income
comes to Rs.63,000/-. After applying multiplier '18', the total
loss of dependency would come to Rs.11,34,000/-.
(2017 (6) 170 SC)
MGP,J
MACMA.No.1679 of 2012 &
Cross-obj.No.32924 of 2012 (I.A.No.5 of 2012)
18. Further, a perusal of the amounts awarded under
conventional heads in the impugned judgment would show that
the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards
funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate which this Court finds the same to be meager and is
inclined to interfere with the same 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) and hereby award Rs.33,000/- towards conventional
heads. Thus, in all, the claimants/cross objectors are entitled
for a total compensation of Rs.11,67,000/- .
19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1679 of 2012 filed by R.T.C is
dismissed and the Cross Objections No.32924 of 2012 (I.A.No.5
of 2012) filed by claimants is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court from
Rs.4,70,000/- to Rs.11,67,000/- which shall carry interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. The respondents 1 & 2/RTC are directed to deposit
the compensation amount within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Upon such
deposit, the cross-objectors/claimants are entitled to withdraw
MGP,J
MACMA.No.1679 of 2012 &
Cross-obj.No.32924 of 2012 (I.A.No.5 of 2012)
the same as per the apportionment made by the learned
Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as
to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.11.03.2025
ysk
