Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ths M.D., A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyd vs Musturi Kalavathi, Chittoor 3 Othrs on 19 July, 2019
Author: J. Uma Devi
Bench: J. Uma Devi
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
The appellant before this Court is the Managing Director of A.P.S.R.T.C against whom the liability to pay compensation of Rs.5,96,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization to the respondents herein, is fixed in respect of the claim they made for the death of the deceased Musturi Venkataramana in a road accident dated 09.07.2011, and the Court below has awarded compensation of Rs.5,96,000/- by allowing their claim.
The respondents in this appeal are the wife, minor son and daughter of the deceased father Musturi Venkataramana. They have laid the claim for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- against the Managing Director of A.P.S.R.T.C regarding the death of the deceased in the accident dated 09.07.2011.
The case of the claimants as narrated in their claim statement that on 08.07.2011 at about 10.00 p.m, the deceased as driver of Bolero Goods vehicle bearing registration No.A.P.03 X 3695 started from Khadervali Mundy at Gurramkonda with the load of tomatoes in order to transport them to Kurnool, and on 09.07.2011 at about 6.00 a.m, when he reached near Bethamcherla cross, the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing registration No.A.P.28 Z 6019 which belonged to Banaganipalle Bus Depot drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed it against the Bolero Goods vehicle. When the Bolero vehicle driven by the deceased was hit by the bus, the front portion of it was damaged and that the deceased struck in between the driver's seat and engine and died on the spot due to fatal injuries who received by him. The deceased was aged about 35 years by the date of accident. According to the claimants, the deceased was a driver by profession and that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as driver; apart from getting income as a driver, he was getting Rs.1,00,000/- per annum through cultivation. As they were deprived of the income of the deceased and his love and affection, they laid the 2 claim for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- as against the Managing Director of A.P.S.R.T.C under whose administrative control, the driver who caused the accident was working at the relevant point of time.
Before the Court below, the respondents-claimants examined three witnesses and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available in the case record awarded the compensation of Rs.5,96,000/- to the respondents/claimants and made the appellant/management of A.P.S.R.T.C liable to pay the said compensation together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition.
Being aggrieved by the award so passed by the Tribunal, the management of A.P.S.R.T.C, preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus, though as a matter of fact, the deceased who drove Bolero Goods vehicle bearing registration No.A.P.03 X 3695, himself was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. As the claimants did not make the owner and the insurer of the Bolero Goods vehicle bearing registration No.A.P.03 X 3695 as the parties, the Court below ought to have dismissed their claim made by the respondents due to non joinder of necessary parties. It was also contended by the management of A.P.S.R.T.C that the evidence on record was not properly evaluated while assessing the income of the deceased and that the compensation awarded was excessive. It was also its contention that the interest awarded was on higher side.
I have perused the award impugned in the present appeal and also the evidence available in the case record. The claimants' contention is that during the morning hours of 09.07.2011, when Bolero Goods vehicle bearing registration No.A.P.03 X 3695, in which the deceased started as driver with the load of tomatoes reached Bethamcherla cross, it was hit by the A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing registration No. A.P. 28 Z 6019, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In the said accident, the front portion of Bolero Goods vehicle bearing registration No.A.P.03 X 3695, was damaged and that the deceased died on the spot.
3
To prove the aforementioned assertion, the claimants examined P.W.2 who lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Orvakal Police Station mentioning the circumstances in which the accident took place. It appeared that though P.W.2 was cross-examined at length by the Standing Counsel of A.P.S.R.T.C, nothing to discredit the testimony was brought out in his cross- examination. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence of P.W.2, whose evidence was corroborated with the documents produced by the claimants in proof of their claim that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus and he was responsible for the accident, the trial Court had rightly observed that the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing registration No.A.P.28-Z-6019 which hit the Bolero Goods vehicle bearing registration No.A.P.03 X 3695, driven by the deceased was responsible for causing the accident in which the deceased died on the sport due to the fatal injuries received by him.
The management of A.P.S.R.T.C though pleaded that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus, had not examined the driver of the bus and no evidence contra to the evidence of P.W.2 was adduced.
As the claimants could substantiate their contention that due to the negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C bus, the accident took place, the trial Court had rightly opined that the owner and the insurer of Bolero Goods vehicle bearing registration No.A.P.03 X 3695 are not the necessary parties to the proceedings.
Coming to the contention of the management of A.P.S.R.T.C that the compensation awarded is excessive and that the interest awarded on compensation is higher side is concerned, the claimants examined the wife of the deceased to prove the income of the deceased through cultivation. It is no doubt true that the claimants have not produced any evidence in proof of possessing of agricultural land by the deceased but they have examined P.W.3 who during the course of examination deposed that he employed the deceased as driver and was paying salary of Rs.10,000/- per month to him apart from daily batta. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that at the material point of 4 time he was driving the vehicle in which he proceeded to Kurnool with the load of Tomotto and also the evidence of P.W.1 who asserted that the deceased was a driver by profession, assessed his income notionally at Rs.4,000/- per month. As the deceased was aged about 35 years by the date of the death, as found from the contents of Exs.A.2 inquest report and A.3 postmortem report, the trial Court had come to the opinion that appropriate multiplier to be applied was '16' as per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 on duly deducting 1/4th income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenditure which would come to Rs.3,000/- per month had assessed his annual income contribution to his family at Rs.36,000/- on multiplying the annual loss of dependency amounting to Rs.36,000/- with multiplier '16', assessed the amount which the claimants could get under the head of loss of dependency at Rs.5,76,000/-.
In addition to the aforementioned amount, a total sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded under conventional heads such as loss of 'consortium', loss of 'estate', and 'funeral' expenditure and the amount so awarded appeared to be low. Therefore, under no circumstances, it can be said that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is on higher side. However, this court finds that the interest awarded on the compensation is on higher side, therefore, the same reduced to 7.5% per annum. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the management of A.P.S.R.T.C is allowed in part.
The appeal filed by the management of A.P.S.R.T.C is partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum. Rest of award passed by the Court below remains as it is. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________ J. UMA DEVI, J Date.19.07.2019 Gk 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 OF 2013 Date:19.07.2019 Gk