Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Apsrtc, Mushirabad, Hyd. vs Patan Shamshad Begum And Others on 11 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ1399, 2000(1)ALD165, 2000(1)ALT117, (2000) 3 TAC 247, 2000 A I H C 698, (2001) 2 ACJ 1399, (2000) 1 ANDHLD 165, (2000) 1 ANDH LT 117
ORDER
Motilal B. Natk, J
1. This appeal is filed by the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad assailing the award passed in MV OP No.671 of 1996 dated 23-7-1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur.
2. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are the egal heirs of the deceased-Patan Mahaboob, respondent No.1 being his wife and respondents 2 to 4 being his minor children. The respondents-claimants filed MV OP No.671 of 1996 on the file of the Tribunal below claiming a total compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the appellant herein on the ground that the deceased-Pathan Mahaboob died due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver. It is the case of the respondents-claimants before the Tribunal below that the deceased was working as helper in PWD Department Workshop of Government of Andhra Pradesh at Macherla. He was drawing a salary of Rs.2,922/- per month and he was 44 years old at the time of the accident. On 2-9-1995 while the deceased was driving the jeep bearing registration No. AP 7U 990 at about 12-30 a.m. from Macherla to Sirigiripadu on Macherla - Srisailam road, the APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 9Z 8509 driven in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction at a high speed and dashed against the jeep driven by the deceased. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries to his legs, hands and other parts of the body and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Macherla. He was later on shifted to the Government General Hospital, Guntur where he succumbed to his injuries at 8-30 a.m. on the same day.
3. The appellant-respondent filed a counter before the Tribunal below putting the claimants to strict proof on all counts. It is alleged by the appellant-respondent that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the jeep by the deceased and the driver of the APSRTC but was not at fault.
4. Before the Tribunal below, on behalf of the respondents-claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-respondent, RW1-driver of the offending bus was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
5. The Tribunal below, on a consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that the deceased-Pattan Mahaboob died in the accident which took place on 2-9-1995 due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9Z 8509. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased who was aged 45 years at the time of his death, the Tribunal below applied the relevant multiplier 13 and awarded an amount of Rs.3,03,8S8/- to the claimants under the head of loss of dependency. The Tribunal further awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation to the first claimant towards loss of consortium, Rs.4,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- for conveyance. In all, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,16,888-00 to the respondents-claimants with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. This is the award of the Tribunal, which is assailed before us in this appeal.
6. Sri C. V. Ramulu, Counsel for the appellant Corporation contended that the Tribunal below erred in holding that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP9Z 8509 by its driver. Counsel further contended that there is also contributory negligence on the part of the deceased-Patan Mahaboob which factor is evident from the statement given by the MLA, under Ex.B1, who travelled in the jeep driven by the deceased. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal below has failed to appreciate the disinterested statement of the MLA under Ex.B1 which clearly indicated that the deceased was at fault and erroneously held that the driver of the APSRTC bus was negligent and committed the accident. Counsel nextly submitted that since the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of his death, the relevant multiplier would have been 12 but not 13 and the Tribunal below erred in applying the multiplier 13. In any event, Counsel contended that the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is excessive and pleaded to set aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal below.
7. In the light of the above submissions, we have carefully perused the impugned award passed by the Tribunal below.
8. It is though submitted by the Counsel for the appellant that the deceased who was driving the jeep was responsible for the accident as is evident from Ex.B1 and the Tribunal should have taken note of this fact of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and ought to have dismissed the OP, we do not think this submission could be accepted. We must say that ExB1 is said to be the statement made by an MLA who was travelling in the jeep which is driven by the deceased. However, the said MLA who is stated to have given the statement under Ex.B1 has not been examined to prove the contents of Ex.B1. When Ex.B1 is not proved, the appellant-respondent cannot take advantage of its contents. Apart from this, at para 11 of the impugned award, the Tribunal has considered the alleged contributory negligence attributed to the deceased who was driving the jeep at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has found that the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver has caused the accident in which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the said injuries. This is a finding of fact by the Tribunal below on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available before it. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the accident occurred only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus at a high speed by its drives. We accordingly reject the contention of the Counsel for the appellant in this regard.
9. It is though contended by the Counsel for the appellant that since the deceased was 45 years old at the time of his death, the relevant multiplier would have been 12 but the Tribunal below has erroneously applied the 13 multiplier, which is impermissible, we do not think this submission could be sustainable. It is well settled that for the purpose of determining the compensation under the head loss of dependency in motor accident cases, reasonable and relevant multiplier has to be applied. Unlike in mathematical calculations where two plus two is always four, no decision is shown by the Counsel for the appellant to the effect that the Tribunal is not entitled to apply the multiplier 13 for the purpose of determining the compensation under the head loss of dependency in this case. It is also held by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions that depending upon the facts of each case, for determining compensation under the head loss of dependency, Courts could apply the multiplier upto 18. In this case, the deceased was aged 45 years at the time of his death and was having 13 more years of service. It is needless to mention that his monthly emoluments would have increased, as he would have earned increments and other pay revision benefits from time to time. Under these circumstances, probably, the Tribunal below came to the conclusion that the relevant multiplier in this case is 13 and awarded an amount of Rs.3,03,888/- towards compensation under the head 'loss of dependency.' We, therefore, do not see any impropriety or unreasonableness in fixing the relevant multiplier 13 by the Tribunal below.
10. The Tribunal below has awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortion to the first claimant wife of the deceased. As held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma -Thomas, , the first claimant-wife of the deceased is entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium. We, therefore, award an amount of Rs.15,000/-to the first claimant-wife under this head. This apart, the claimants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, though the Tribunal below has not awarded any amount under this head to the claimants. We accordingly award an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants under the head loss of estate to be shared by all the claimants equally. Though the Tribunal below has awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/-to the claimants towards funeral expenses, we hold that the claimants are entitled for funeral expenses and as such we withhold the amount of Rs.4,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for conveyance, which according to us is justifiable and no interference is called for as far as that amount is concerned.
11. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for a total amount of Rupees three lakhs thirty four thousand eight hundred and eighty eight, under the following heads:
(a) loss of dependency Rs. 3,03,888-00
(b) loss of consortium Rs. 15,000-00
(c) loss of estate Rs. 15,000-00
(d) conveyance Rs. 1,000-00 Rs. 3,34,888-00
12. Though the appeal is filed by the State Road Transport Corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by virtue of the provisions contemplated under Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC, this Court is empowered to enhance the compensation amount though the respondent-claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal below in a given case.
13. Thus, as indicated above, the respondents-claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rupees Three lakhs thirty four thousand eight hundred and eighty eight only with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.
14. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. However, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal below stands modified as indicated above. No costs.