Telangana High Court
The A.P State Road Transport ... vs Panjala Bharathi, on 13 March, 2025
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2659 OF 2019
AND
CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.26 OF 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2019 passed in M.V.O.P
No.351 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -
cum- III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, 'the
Tribunal'), the 2nd respondent/RTC in the said M.V.O.P. preferred
M.A.C.M.A.2659 of 2019 seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside
the order of the learned Tribunal. Also, having not satisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants in the said
M.V.O.P. preferred Cross-Objections No.26 of 2024 seeking
enhancement of compensation. Since both the cases arise out of the
common order passed by the Tribunal, 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 wife, children and parents of Late Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as
'the deceased') filed a petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the
death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
21.10.2013. It is stated by the petitioners that on 21.10.2013, when
the deceased along with his wife proceeded on Motorcycle bearing
MGP,J
MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 &
No.AP-15-AZ-1112 from Maddunoor to Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy
Templt at Itikyal Village to offer Pooja and after performing pooja, the
deceased went to rivulet which is situated at the outskirts of Itikyala
Village in order to attend nature call and when reached house of Raja
Guravaiah, at that time, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-4078 of
Karimnagar II depot, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the
deceased sustained crush injury to head and other fracture injuries all
over the body and died on the spot.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Luxettipet Police Station
registered a case in Crime No.138 of 2013 under Section 304-A IPC.
5. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged 42 years
and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month on Agriculture and toddy
tapping and contribute his earnings towards maintenance and welfare
of family. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost
their source of income and were put to severe hardship. Hence, filed
petition claiming compensation against respondent Nos.1 & 2 being the
driver and Managing Director of offending RTC Bus.
6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed its counter denying the
averments made in the claim petition and contended that the deceased
came in wrong direction and dashed against right side bumper of the
MGP,J
MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 &
bus and there is no negligence on part of respondent No.1 and further
contended that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of non-joinder of owner and insurer of motorcycle as necessary
parties to the petition and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against
him.
7. Respondent No.2/Managing Director of RTC also filed his counter
contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of
motorcyclist and stated that their Corporation paid an amount of
Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses on account of death of deceased.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed
the following issues for conducting trial:
(i) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle i.e., APSRTC Bus bearing
No.AP-28-Z-4078 driven by its driver?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation?
If so to what amount and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
9. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 4 were
examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of respondents,
the driver of crime RTC Bus was examined as RW1, but no
documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf.
MGP,J
MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 &
10. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record,
partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of
Rs.16,40,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization payable by respondents 1 & 2 jointly
and severally. Aggrieved by the said finding, the respondent No.2/RTC
in the said O.P. preferred M.A.C.M.A.2659 of 2019 seeking to set-aside
the order of learned Tribunal and the claimants therein preferred Cross-
objections petition requesting enhancement of compensation amount.
11. Heard Ms.Bhavishya Amagoni, learned counsel who argued on
behalf of Sri N.Chandrasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for
appellant/TSRTC and Sri Ramchander Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel
who argued on behalf of Sri N.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for
respondents/claimants/cross-objectors. Perused the record.
12. The contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for
Appellant/RTC are that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the
owner and insurer of Motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AZ-1112 as proper
and necessary parties to the claim petition; erred in applying multiplier
'14' without any documentary evidence showing the age of the deceased
and also erred in assessing the income of the deceased without there
being any proper evidence and that the compensation awarded is excess
MGP,J
MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 &
and exorbitant and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside
the order of the learned Tribunal.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/Cross-objectors
contended that the learned Tribunal took the income of the deceased on
meager side and therefore requested to allow the cross-objections
petition by enhancing the compensation amount.
14. 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:-
15. Since learned Standing counsel for TSRTC contended that the
claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of not making the
owner and insurer of Motorcycle as proper and necessary parties to the
claim petition, this Court is inclined to once again discuss the aspects
of occurrence of accident and death of the deceased.
16. PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident and who travelled in
the crime RTC bus deposed in his evidence that the driver of the subject
RTC bus was driving the Bus in a rash and negligent manner at high
speed and dashed against the motorcyclist who came in opposite
direction. He further stated that the driver of the RTC bus was
MGP,J
MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 &
negligent in driving the bus and the motorcyclist is not responsible for
the accident. Though PW2 was cross-examined, nothing adverse was
elicited from him except denying the suggestions put by the counsel
appearing for RTC. Further, Ex.A2-Charge sheet clearly shows the
accused-RTC driver has committed an offence punishable under Section
304-A IPC.
17. Therefore, from the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A2-Charge
sheet, it is clear that the death of the deceased was due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of crime RTC. Hence, the contention of
the learned Standing counsel for appellants that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle and
that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-
joinder of necessary parties to the petition, is unsustainable as there is
no contributory negligence on part of the rider of the motorcycle in the
alleged accident. Hence, the finding arrived by the learned Tribunal is
held to be proper and it does not require any interference by this Court.
18. The other contention of the learned Standing Counsel for
appellant/RTC is that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the
income of the deceased without any proper evidence and also erred in
application of multiplier without any documentary proof showing the
age of the deceased.
MGP,J
MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 &
19. A perusal of quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment
shows that the learned Tribunal took the monthly income of the
deceased @ 10,000/- per month; added 25% towards future prospects;
deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased;
applied relevant multiplier and calculated loss of dependency which
arrived at Rs.15,75,000/-. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal also
awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads and awarded
a total compensation of Rs.16,40,000/-.
20. To substantiate their contention with regard to income of the
deceased, the petitioners got examined PWs 3 & 4 on their behalf.
21. PW3-President of Toddy Tapping Society, Buggaram Mandal,
Jagtia District, deposed in his evidence that the deceased used to earn
Rs.500/- per day as toddy tapper. Apart from working as toddy tapper,
the deceased is also having agriculture and milk business and used to
earn Rs.15,000/- per month.
22. The evidence of PW4-Secretary, Karimnagar District Milk
Producers Cooperative Society, is to the effect that the deceased used to
supply 5 to 7 litres of milk to their society and used to earn average
income of Rs.300/- per day. Apart from milk business, the deceased
used to get income out of Agriculture and toddy tapping. Ex.A13 is the
certificate given by their society showing the amount paid to the
MGP,J
MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 &
deceased for supply of milk. A perusal of the said certificate shows
that the deceased used to supply more than 2,000 litres of milk per year
to the said Society and used to receive an amount of more than
Rs.1lakh per annum. Further, PW1 deposed that the deceased is
having Ac.1.23 ½ guntas of agricultural land and used to earn
Rs.1,00,000/- per annum.
23. Hence, this Court, considering the date of accident, the evidence
of PWs 3 & 4 who deposed about the sources of income the deceased
used to get and Ex.A13-Certificate showing the annual income the
deceased used to get through milk business, this Court is inclined to
interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby fix the
monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.11,000/- and calculate the
compensation.
24. As far as age of the deceased is concerned, Ex.A12-Identity card
issued by Karimnagar District Milk Producers Cooperative Society,
shows the age of the deceased as 38 years in the year 2009. As the
accident occurred in the year 2013, the age of the deceased would be 42
years. As there is no rebuttal evidence on respondent's side, this Court
finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal.
25. Coming to calculation of compensation, as discussed above, the
monthly income of the deceased is taken @ Rs.11,000/-. Considering
MGP,J
MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 &
the age of the deceased as 42 years, if 25% is added towards future
prospects to the income of the deceased as per judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranay Sethi 1, then his
future monthly income would be Rs.13,750/-. Since the number of
dependents are 6, if 1/4th is deducted towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased had he been alive, then his net monthly
income comes to Rs.10,312/- and the annual income comes to
Rs.1,23,744/-. After applying multiplier '14', the total loss of
dependency on account of the death of the deceased would come to
Rs.17,32,416/-.
26. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/-
towards conventional heads by following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Prayany Sethi (cited supra) which this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the same as the same is in proper perspective.
Considering the fact that the petitioners 3 & 4, being minor child, this
Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of
parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma
General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram
and others 2. Hence, the claimants/cross objectors are entitled for a
total compensation of Rs.18,82,416/-.
(2017 (6) 170 SC)
(2018) 18 SCC 130
MGP,J
MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 &
27. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2659 of 2019- filed by R.T.C, is
dismissed and the Cross Objections No.26 of 2024- filed by claimants is
partly - allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.16,40,000/- to Rs.18,82,416/- 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 the same as per the
apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee
and by foregoing interest for a period of 1655 days, which is the delay
caused in filing cross-objections petition . There shall be no order as to
costs.
28. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.13.03.2025
ysk
MGP,J
MACMA.No.2659 of 2019 &
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2659 OF 2019
AND
CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.26 OF 2024
Dt.13.03.2025
