Telangana High Court
Tamatam Prameela vs Tsrtc on 2 May, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
MACMA.No.82 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act
(for short 'the MV Act') by the claimants aggrieved by the award dated
18.09.2019 passed in MVOP.No.767 of 2015 by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Ranga Reddy District,
L.B.Nagar (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. It is stated in the claim petition that on 28.08.2015 at about 7.30
p.m. while the deceased T. Radhakrishna was crossing the road at
Madina Stone Shop opposite to Anuradha Timber Depot, at that time
the driver of the RTC bus bearing No. AP-11-Z-4570 drove the vehicle
with high speed in rash and negligent manner, dashed him due to
which he sustained severe injuries and he was shifted to Gandhi
Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment, where he died at 23.30 hours.
On the complaint, PS Bowenpally has registered a case in Crime
No.309/2015 under Section 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the said
bus. At the time of accident the deceased was aged about 49 years and
was hale and healthy, working as a Mason and earning Rs.9,000/- per
BRMR, J
month. On account of the death of the deceased, the petitioners were
deprived of the contribution apart from love and affection and prayed to
grant Rs.10 lakhs as compensation.
3. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
4. Respondent No.1 has filed counter stating that the accident has
not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
bus and denied the age, avocation and earning of the deceased and
further stated that no accident has taken place as alleged by the
claimant and corporation is not liable to pay the amount.
5. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:
i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.TSRTC No. AP11 - Z - 4570 as
contended by the petitioners?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation?
iii) To what relief?
6. The Tribunal has held that accident has taken place due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and answered
issue No.1 in favour of the claim petitioners. The Tribunal has taken
the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- and added 25%
towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in
BRMR, J
National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 and
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, and applied the multiplier
'13' as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma &
Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr 2 and awarded Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,85,000/- towards loss of
dependency and in total awarded Rs.6,55,000/- payable by the
respondents jointly and severally with interest rate of 9% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of deposit with costs and interest.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal
ought to have awarded more amount towards compensation and failed
to accept the income of the deceased as he was working as a Mason and
earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal has failed to award
consortium to appellant No.2 as per the decision of the Supreme Court
in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram and others 3. The Tribunal failed to award transportation
charges, extra nourishment and interest ought to have been awarded at
1 (2017) 6 SCC 680
2 (2009) 2 ACJ 1298
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 = 2018 ACJ 2782 SC
BRMR, J
the rate of 12% per annum and relied on the decision in Sagunthala
and another vs. Bakkiyam and another 4 and the Gazette of India dated
31.05.2010, prayed to allow the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that
the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-
as the accident has taken place on 28.08.2015 and rightly calculated
the amount and no interference is called for.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the quantum
and prayed for enhancement of the amount.
11. It is the case of the appellants/claim petitioners that the deceased
Radhakrishna was working as a Mason and earning Rs.9,000/- per
month and he was contributing the same to the family. The Tribunal
has considered the minimum wages payable to a normal coolie at the
time of the accident i.e., 28.08.2015, has taken Rs.4,500/- as earning
of the deceased.
4 2021 ACJ 1546
BRMR, J
12.1 In Sagunthala's case4 the Madras High Court has fixed an amount
of Rs.9,000/- as monthly income for a coolie for the accident occurred
on 08.03.2015.
12.2 Learned counsel for the appellants has filed The Gazette of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment Notification, New Delhi dated
31.05.2010 which shows that as per Sub Section 1(B) of Section 4 of
the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Central Government has
fixed the monthly wages as Rs.8,000/- from the date of publication.
13. The income taken by the Tribunal is less during the prevailing
situation at the relevant point of time (28.08.2015) and has erroneously
fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-. Reasonable
amount has to be fixed as monthly income and it would be appropriate
that an amount of Rs.8,000/- is fixed as monthly income for the
purpose of calculating the compensation will meet the ends of justice.
14. The determination of compensation is as under:
Sl.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded
1. Monthly income Rs.8,000/-
2. Add 25% future prospects Rs.10,000/- (8,000 + 2,000)
BRMR, J
(25% of 8,000)=2,000
3. Annual income Rs.1,20,000/-
(10,000 x 12)
4. 1/3rd deductions towards Rs.40,000/-
personal expenses (1,20,000/3)
5. Total Rs.80,000/-
(1,20,000 - 40,000)
6. Multiplier '13' Rs.10,40,000/-
(80,000 x 13)
7. Transportation charges Rs.5,000/-
8. Damages to clothing Rs.1,000/-
9. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
10. Loss of consortium Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- each)
11. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
12. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
13. Total Rs.11,81,000/-
15. Interest to be awarded at the rate of 12% per annum as per the
decision of the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited case3.
16. Total compensation awarded is Rs.11,81,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim
petition (08.09.2015) till payment. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly
and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded along with
BRMR, J
interest and costs. Appellants are entitled to receive the amount
equally.
17. In the result, MACMA.No.82 of 2022 is allowed as under:
a) The impugned award dated 18.09.2015 passed in MVOP.No.767
of 2015 stands modified.
b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.6,55,000/- is
enhanced to Rs.11,81,000/- together with interest at the rate of
12% per annum from the date of filing the petition (08.09.2015)
till payment.
c) Appellants to pay court fee on the enhanced amount.
d) Appellants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount equally
with proportionate costs and interest thereon without furnishing
security.
e) The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the awarded
amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the
amount already deposited if any within a period of 60 days from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
As a sequel miscellaneous application/applications pending, if
any, shall stand closed. No costs.
________________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
02.05.2025
Dua
