Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1561 (AP)

APSRTC v. GOVINDRAM GUPTA

2006-12-12

V.ESWARAIAH

body2006
( 1 ) THE appellant is the APSRTC. and the respondents are the claimants. ( 2 ) THE claimants filed O. P. No. 1709 of 1997 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of the wife of the first respondent and the mother of respondents 2 and 3. ( 3 ) THE appellant disputing the finding recorded by the Tribunal below contending that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 13 B 5719 and the OP ought to have dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. e. owner and insurer of the Tata Sumo. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the claimant that on 11-5-1997 while the deceased along with the family members of the first claimant after having darshan at Tirumala Tirupathi devastanam, left Tirupathi at 5. 30 p. m. in tata Sumo car bearing No. 13 B 5719 to hyderabad, and when they reached near manopad Village limits on the National highway No. 7 at K. M. 185/4 at about 2. 30 a. m. on 12-5-1997 on the extreme left side of the road, APSRTC bus bearing No. AP. 9 Z 9295 of Allagadda Depot in opposite direction. e. , from Hyderabad side came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the vehicle in which the deceased along with her family members and others were travelled. Due to which, thesaid vehicle was totally damaged and deceased smt. Manjudevi Gupta alias Manju Devi died on the spot. One Mr. Mohanlal Gupta also sustained multiple injuries, died while undergoing treatment at about 8. 25 p. m. at government General Hospital, Kurnool. Apart from that one Sunitha sustained grievous multiple injuries and fractures and she lost her right eye completely. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the claimants that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus, the accident took place and the police of the Manopad, had registered a case in Crime No. 39 of 1997, under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC, against the driver of the said bus. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the claimants that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus, the accident took place and the police of the Manopad, had registered a case in Crime No. 39 of 1997, under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC, against the driver of the said bus. It is stated that the first claimant also received multiple injuries and lost total teeth in the said accident and the claimants 2 and 3 are the minor sons of the deceased claimant and their future prospectus heavily affected due to mother's death since there is nobody to look after them and for giving motherly love. ( 6 ) A counter affidavit has also been filed disputing the said averments made in the claim petition as well as the manner and method in which the accident occurred and stated that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of APSRTC bus and the driver of the Tata Sumo was only responsible for causing the accident. ( 7 ) TO prove the said accident, the first claimant himself was examined as P. W. 1, who narrated the incident, he being the direct eyewitness. He stated that his wife was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and she was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month by doing tailoring business and used to spend entire income to the maintenance of the family. The husband spent Rs. 15,000/- for her funeral and obsequies. Ex. A-1 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. Ex. A-2 is the certified copy of the FIR, Ex. A-3 is the p. M. Report, Ex. A-4 is the inquest report, ex. A-5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. Exs. A-6 to A-9 are the income tax returns acknowledgments. The suggestion that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus and that the wife of the deceased was more then 50 years and that the income tax returns acknowledgments were filed only for the purpose of claiming compensation were all denied. A-6 to A-9 are the income tax returns acknowledgments. The suggestion that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus and that the wife of the deceased was more then 50 years and that the income tax returns acknowledgments were filed only for the purpose of claiming compensation were all denied. ( 8 ) P. W. 2 is the another eye witness, who was traveling in the said Tata Sumo, stated that due to rash and negligent driving of the apsrtc bus, which came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed dashed against the said Tata sumo, due to which the deceased died on the spot and the other family members also received injuries. The suggestion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by its driver in a sleepy mood was also denied. ( 9 ) P. W. 3 is another eyewitness, who was also traveling in the said Tata Sumo, stated that the front right portion of the RTC bus dashed against the Tata Sumo. The driver of the bus examined as R. W. 1, who stated that when he reached near Dharmavaram, at about 2. 30 a. m. on 12-5-1997 the Tata Sumo while trying to overtake lorry, coming to the extreme right side in opposite direction dashed against the bus, though he was going on the extreme left Side of the road. He stated that there was no fault on his part. In the cross-examination it is stated that he has given report to the Police, Manampadu Police station, later it was shifted to Rajolu. They did not consider his report but filed a case against him. The opposite vehicle would be visualized from a distance of 50 to 60 yards and there was no vehicle in fact infronl of his bus. There is no evidence to show the speed of the bus. It is stated that the case filed against him was ended in acquittal but he has not filed any copy of the same. On a suggestion that the case was not ended in acquittal, he was denied. There is no evidence to show the speed of the bus. It is stated that the case filed against him was ended in acquittal but he has not filed any copy of the same. On a suggestion that the case was not ended in acquittal, he was denied. The fact remains that the driver never informed to the police and not filed any report and on the other hand, the charge sheet goes to show that p. W. 2 filed a report before the police and based on that, the said FIR 39/97, dated 12-5-1997 was registered and after making necessary investigation, a charge sheet has been filed stating that as per the investigation, it is established that on 11-5-1997 at about 5. 30 PM when the family members of the deceased and others P. Ws. 2 and 3 left tirupathi, after darshanam of Lord Balaji in their Tata Sumo Van bearing No. AP-13-B-5719 to Hyderabad, and they all reached maidukur at 10 PM and had their dinner and while coming to Hyderabad, on the way near K. M. Stone No. 185/4 on N. H. 7, in the limits of Manopad, suddenly one RTC bus bearing No. AP/9z/9295 of Allagadda depot, driven by its driver G. Laxmireddy, R. W. 1 came in an opposite direction and dashed to the Tata Sumo on the extreme right, due to which, the deceased was died on the spot and the others sustained injuries. Thus, I am of the opinion that based on the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal rightly recorded a finding holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus alone. ( 10 ) IN so far as the claim of the compensation is concerned, it is to be seen that basing on Exs. A-6 and A-7 the Tribunal taken the annual income of the deceased at rs. 37,490/- but as against the sum of rs. 37,490, the Tribunal has taken into account only Rs. 36,000/- and out of which after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses arrived at the contribution basing on the age of the deceased at 40 by applying multiplier of 12. 79. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the annual income was to be fixed at Rs. 37490/- considering the fact that the deceased was an income tax assessee. 36,000/- and out of which after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses arrived at the contribution basing on the age of the deceased at 40 by applying multiplier of 12. 79. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the annual income was to be fixed at Rs. 37490/- considering the fact that the deceased was an income tax assessee. If that be so, the annual income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs. 37,490/- instead of rs. 36,000/- as taken by the Tribunal below. If 1/3rd amount is deducted, her contribution to the family is at Rs. 24,490/- per year and for the age of 40 years the appropriate multiplier would be 15 as per the guiding principle mentioned in the II Schedule and if that be so, the total compensation comes to rs. 3,74,850/ -. Apart from that, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 10,000/- towards consortium. If Rs. 25,000/- is added the total compensation comes to Rs. 3,99,850/- whereas the Tribunal awarded the compensation at Rs. 3,31,960/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The amount granted by the Tribunal is less than the amount that is entitled by the claimants. In view of the above said fact, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed with costs payable to the respondents by the appellants. .