Telangana High Court
Veljala Ramulu, Mahabubnagar Dist Anr vs The Apsrtc Depot Mgr, Mahabubnagar Dist ... on 21 June, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1605 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 20.01.2015 passed in O.P.No.2673 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the husband and son of one V.Balamma (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. It is stated that on 30.05.2013 at about 7.30 hours the deceased, along with others, were proceeding in Auto bearing No.AP 22 W 6450 in order to go Cherkur and when the said auto reached near Medigadda gate limits, Amangal village, 2 GSD, J Macma_1605_2015 one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 0052 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the auto, due to which the auto turned turtle and the deceased and other inmates of the auto sustained injuries and died. On a complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.108 of 2013 against the driver of the R.T.C. bus. It is also stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing labour work. Hence, the claimants filed the above claim-petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the R.T.C..
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondents filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is specifically stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased, V. Balamma, due to rash 3 GSD, J Macma_1605_2015 and negligent driving of driver of the motor vehicle (APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 0052) by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability fo the respondents?
3. To what relief?
6. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.
7. 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 R.T.C. bus and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.2,21,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellants/claimants, seeking enhancement.
8. Heard and perused the record.
4
GSD, J Macma_1605_2015
9. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C. bus, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. 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 the R.T.C. bus.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly the deceased was 55 years old lady and the claimants are the husband and son of the deceased. Though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as labourer, but the Tribunal fixed the income at Rs.20,000/- per annum. In Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others1 the Apex Court held that "the services rendered by a housewife to her household should be given a 1 AIR 2001 SC 3218 5 GSD, J Macma_1605_2015 broad interpretation and an expansive meaning." In the instant case, relying upon Ex.A4-post mortem examination report, the Tribunal has categorically held that the deceased was aged about 55 years. Hence, in view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, the income of the deceased is to be fixed at Rs.4,000/- per month.
11. Insofar as the future prospects are concerned to the housewives, the Apex Court recently in Kirti and another etc. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.2 made certain general observations regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation, which can be summarized as follows:
"a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.
b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains 2 AIR 2021 SC 353 6 GSD, J Macma_1605_2015 special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.
c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.
e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation."
12. In view of above said decision, the claimants shall be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 10%.
13. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident. If the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month is taken and if 10% of the income is added 7 GSD, J Macma_1605_2015 to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects, the total income of the deceased would be Rs.4,400/- per month. From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3, after deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.2,933/- per month. Applying multiplier '11', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.2,933/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.3,87,156/-. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (supra) the appellants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,64,156/-.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,21,000/- to Rs.4,64,156/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization. The 3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 8 GSD, J Macma_1605_2015 respondents are directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 21.06.2022 gkv