Telangana High Court
The Depot Mgr, Apsrtc, Adilabad Dist Anr vs Razia Begum, Nizamabad Anr on 24 June, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 854 of 2015 & 893 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (presently, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation), respondents before the Tribunal, preferred MACMA No. 854 of 2015 challenging the order and decree made in O.P. No. 307 of 2012, dated 23.12.2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant. Whereas, against the very same order and decree, MACMA No. 893 of 2015 is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
2. On 11.12.2011, at about 18:45 hours, while the deceased, Meer Tabrez Ali, aged about 31 years, along with one Shaik Jameer, was proceeding on his motorcycle towards Arsapally, the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Bus bearing No. AP 28Z 4200, owned by the respondents-RTC, drove the Bus with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle, received multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 31 years, working in Bakery and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, they claimed a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs from the respondents towards compensation under different heads. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the 2 respondents-RTC, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.P. awarding total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum against the respondents-RTC.
3. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants in MACMA No. 893 of 2015 contends that the learned Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, erred in not granting just and fair compensation although the claimants have claimed only Rs.8.00 lakhs. The tribunal erred in taking the age of the mother of the deceased into consideration while fixing the multiplier, and it should have taken the age of the deceased into consideration. Further, since the deceased was skilled worker, the tribunal ought to have added 40% towards future prospects to the established income of the deceased as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1.
5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-RTC (appellants in MACMA No. 854 of 2015) has contended that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its 1 2017 ACJ 2700 3 driver without there being any acceptable evidence on record. In fact, there is contributory negligence on the part of P.W.2, who was riding the motorcycle, as the accident was occurred when P.W.2 suddenly entered on main road from a hotel without observing the traffic on the road. P.W.2 was not an eyewitness to the accident and he is an interested witness and therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon. It is further contended that the amounts granted under loss of dependency and Rs.1,00,000/- granted towards loss of love and affection are exorbitant. Though the deceased was bachelor, the tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses from the gross monthly income, instead, 50% ought to have been deducted.
6. As seen from the record, before the tribunal, it was the contention of the respondents-RTC that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, that the rider of the motorcycle suddenly came on the road from a hotel without observing the traffic on the road. Except examining R.W.1, driver of the bus in this regard, no other evidence is placed on record to prove the same. On the contrarily, P.W.2, the eyewitness to the accident, clearly stated that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Although he was cross-examined at length, except eliciting that he is co-worker in the bakery where the deceased was working, no contra evidence was elicited in his evidence. Moreover, Exs.A.1 and A.2 disclose that the driver of the bus, R.W.1, was 4 prosecuted for his rash and negligent driving in causing the accident for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. In such circumstances and considering Exs.A.1 & A.2, the tribunal rightly held that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. Hence, this Court is not inclined to disturb the said findings.
7. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants, relying on Ex.A.6, salary certificate, claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as salary working in Raj Bakery, Nizamabad. In the absence of examining any person to substantiate the authenticity of Ex.A.6, the tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- as he was skilled worker. Further, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), as the deceased was 31 years at the time of death, to his established income, 40% needs to be added towards future prospects. Hence, by duly adding 40% to the income of the deceased, the monthly future income is fixed at Rs.9,800/-. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC, the tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and as the deceased was bachelor, 50% should have been deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, after deducting 50% therefrom towards personal expenses of the deceased, as he was a bachelor, the net monthly income comes to Rs.4,900/-. Therefore, the annual loss of income of claimants would be Rs.58,800/-. There is no dispute as to 5 the age of the deceased being 31 years. However, the tribunal erred in taking the age of the mother of the deceased into consideration for applying the multiplier, instead, the age of the deceased ought to have been taken into consideration. Therefore, by applying the multiplier, '16', the loss of dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.9,40,800/-. Thus, under the head of loss of dependency, the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.9,40,800/- as against Rs.7,28,000/-. However, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-RTC, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), under conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- only. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.9,73,800/-.
8. In the result, the appeal preferred by the claimants i.e., M.A.C.M.A. No. 893 of 2015 is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.9,73,800/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by the respondents-RTC. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, M.A.C.M.A. No. 854 of 2015 preferred by the RTC stands allowed in part to the extent of deducting the personal expenses of the deceased at 50% instead of 1/3rd as was done by the tribunal and also by restricting the conventional amounts to Rs.33,000/-. The claimants shall pay the 6 deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation as the original claim was for Rs.8.00 lakhs. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI June 24, 2022 tsr 7 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 854 of 2015 & 893 of 2015 DATE: 24-06-2022