Telangana High Court
Smt. G.Aruna 3 Others vs The Managing Director, Another on 24 February, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3853 of 2014 and 4121 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.3853 of 2014 filed by the Road Transport Corporation and M.A.C.M.A.No.4121 of 2014 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation, are directed against the very same order and decree, dated 18.02.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.546 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of the XVIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one G. Mallikarjuna (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in an accident. It is stated that on 27.6.2008 at about 2 3.30 P.M., the deceased was proceeding on his motor bike and when he reached near Food World in the main road of Karkhana, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 9446 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased from his behind, as a result of which, the body of the deceased was crushed and he died on the spot. It is also stated that the deceased was working as a teacher in a private school and earning Rs.16,000/- per month.
Respondents filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is mainly contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and as such, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation and that the compensation claimed is excessive.
On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.
After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the RTC 3 bus and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.12,79,500/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present Appeals came to be filed by the Road Transport Corporation and the claimants respectively.
Heard and perused the record.
A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 9446, to which the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and has answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 9446.
4
Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants claimed that the deceased was working as Teacher in a private school and also running Eswar Tutorials. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% of the amount towards future prospects. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.12,600/- (Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-). After deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.8,400-00 per month. As per Ex.A4-P.M.E. Report, the deceased was aged about 36 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier as '15' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 instead of '16'. Adopting multiplier '15', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.8,400/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.15,12,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,89,000/-.
Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.3853 of 2014 filed by the R.T.C. is dismissed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.4121 of 2014 filed by the claimants is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.12,79,500/- to Rs.15,89,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 24.02.2022 gkv