Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs M. Chengalraya Naidu And Another on 16 July, 2019
Author: J.Uma Devi
Bench: J.Uma Devi
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A No.236 of 2013
JUDGMENT:
The Management of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short "APSRTC") disputing its liability to pay compensation of Rs.16,56,716/- to the claimants (respondents herein), vide Award in M.V.O.P.No.533 of 2008, dated 11.02.2011, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, (for short "the Tribunal) has preferred this appeal raising certain contentions.
One of the prime contentions raised by the Management of APSRTC is that the driver of the opposite Bolero vehicle bearing No.MH-17V-5670 was equally responsible for the occurrence of the accident, dated 18.05.2008, in which the deceased M.Dinesh died. Since the owner and the insurer of the aforementioned vehicle are not added as parties to the claim petition, the court below ought to have dismissed the petition filed by the respondents.
The other contention of the Management of APSRTC is that the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent is excessive and exorbitant. The court below ought not to have given much credence to the evidence of PW 3 to assess the income of the deceased.
As these being the contentions raised by the Management of APSRTC, disputing its liability to pay compensation, the entire evidence on record needs to be re-appreciated.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased have laid the claim for compensation as against the Management of APSRTC contending that on 18.05.2008 at about 8 pm while their son M.Dinesh 2 JUD,J MACMA_236_2013 was going to Rajampeta from Tirupati in an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11Z-4713, when the bus reached near Weavers colony, Reddypalle Tank Bund on Rajampeta-Railway Kodur main road, it was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit to a Tractor which was proceeding ahead of it and later to a Bolero vehicle which was coming opposite to it, as a result of it, the deceased who was travelling in the bus sustained injuries and died on the spot. Regarding the above mentioned accident, a case in Cr.No.31/2008 was registered against the driver of the APSRTC bus under sections 338 and 304-A IPC in the police station at Obulavaripalli and later he was chargesheeted. It was according to the respondents that their deceased son was working in ICICI Bank and was contributing his entire income towards their maintenance. The Court below on appreciation of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, whom the respondents examined to prove their case and marked Exs.A1 to A9, awarded compensation of Rs.16,56,716/-.
The Management of APSRTC which has come with the prime contention that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the opposite Bolero vehicle has not chosen to examine either the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11Z-4713 or any of the passenger or conductor of the bus. No steps are taken by the Management of APSRTC to prove that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the opposite Bolero vehicle.
The trial Judge placing reliance on the testimony of PW 2-Y.Narasa Reddy, who travelled in the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11Z-4713 along with the deceased, wherefrom it was clear that when the bus reached near Weavers Colony at Reddypalle Tank Bund, the bus hit the tractor, which was proceeding ahead of it, later to a Bolero vehicle which was 3 JUD,J MACMA_236_2013 coming opposite of it and as a result of it, there was an accident and in the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot, came to the opinion that the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP11Z-4713 was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. The plea raised by the Management of APSRTC is that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the opposite Bolero vehicle has not been proved or established. Therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to this court to hold that the contentions raised by the Management of APSRTC bus cannot be accepted.
Coming to the contentions raised by the APSRTC disputing the quantum of compensation, the respondents to prove that the deceased was working in ICICI Bank prior to his death and drawing salary of Rs.22,037/- per month examined PW 3 and produced Ex.A7 pay slip for the month of April, 2008. They also produced his salary certificate for the month of April, 2008 and marked it as Ex.A9. PW 3-Hithesh Chopra, the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank produced the salary particulars of the deceased. The Court below upon due consideration of the evidence of PW 3 and Exs.A7 and A9 assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.21,023/- on duly deducting the amount he paid towards profession tax and income tax etc. As the age of the mother of the deceased was 48 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier '13'. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his monthly income was deducted towards his personal and living expenditure. The Court below on duly deducting 50% of the monthly income of the deceased assessed his monthly income contribution to his family at Rs.10,511/- per month and per year at Rs.1,26,132/-. On multiplying the annual loss of income contribution of the deceased to his family amounting to Rs.1,26,132/- with multiplier '13' 4 JUD,J MACMA_236_2013 as the mother of the deceased was aged about 48 years by the date of his death the Tribunal had assessed the total loss of income of the deceased to his family at Rs.16,39,716/-. The court below awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges etc. and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and thus, awarded total compensation of Rs.16,56,716/-. The amount of compensation awarded to the claimants, the present respondents, amounting to Rs.16,56,716/- appears to be reasonable and fair. Therefore, under no circumstances, it can be said that the compensation amount of Rs.16,56,716/- which is awarded to the respondents is excessive and exorbitant.
I find no patent illegality in the award passed by the court below granting compensation of Rs.16,56,716/- to the claimants, the present respondents, in respect of the death of M.Dinesh, who died in the accident, dated 18.05.2008. The award under challenge, in my view, is not suffering from any factual or legal infirmities and the same deserves to be confirmed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Management of APSRTC is dismissed without costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
__________________ J.UMA DEVI,J Date: 16.07.2019 Dsr