Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 180 (AP)

Managing Director, APSRTC v. C. Rangaswamy

2012-02-17

R.KANTHA RAO

body2012
Judgment : Common Judgment: This appeal is filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. and the cross-objections by the claimants against the award dated 23.03.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.2649 of 2005. Challenge to the award by the A.P.S.R.T.C. is on the ground that the Tribunal without properly appreciating the evidence on record wrongly held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus and also on the ground that the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is on higher side. Whereas, the cross-objections are filed by the claimants on the ground that compensation granted by the Tribunal is not adequate, not just and reasonable and it requires enhancement. I have heard Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the A.P.S.R.T.C. and Smt.B.Roja Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-cross objectors. Since this Court, to arrive at a reasonable compensation required to be paid to the claimants on the appeal filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C., I do not want to go into the technical question whether the cross-objections are maintainable or a regular appeal has to be filed. Therefore, I dispose of the appeal as well as the cross-objections by the following common judgment. According to the claimants, their son Dattu hereinafer called ‘the deceased’ was a III year B.E. (Mechanical) student and on 25.02.2005 while he was proceeding on his motorcycle to his college near Kukatpally, a DCM van was proceeding ahead of him, and he was driving the two wheeler slowly but the bus bearing No. AP11Z 16 belonging to Miyapur Depot driven in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The claimants examined PW-2, the police constable who was on duty and intimated the police about the accident. But, the said witness was not subjected to cross-examination. However, the claimants examined one Dasari Anajaiah-PW-3 as eyewitness to the accident. According to him, he was standing by the side of the road and he noticed the van proceeding on the way and the bus being driven from his behind in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle and killed the boy. PW-3 was also cited as eyewitness in the charge sheet Ex.A-2. According to him, he was standing by the side of the road and he noticed the van proceeding on the way and the bus being driven from his behind in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle and killed the boy. PW-3 was also cited as eyewitness in the charge sheet Ex.A-2. This witness had spoken to the fact that the accident was due to the fault of the driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus. Learned counsel appearing for the A.P.S.R.T.C. would submit that in the F.I.R. it is mentioned that while the deceased was proceeding on the motorcycle, he applied brakes suddenly, due to which, he fell down and the bus which was coming from behind dashed the deceased. Basing on the averments of the F.I.R. and also the averments in the claim petition, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC seeks to argue that there is inconsistency in these two versions and therefore, it has to be held that the accident was not due to the fault of the driver of the bus. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged basing on the information conveyed by the mother of the deceased who was not an eyewitness to the accident and therefore, the Tribunal below rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In any event, the inconsistency pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the A.P.S.R.T.C. and the version in the F.I.R. is not so material. Both the versions are to the effect that the bus came from behind and dashed the deceased who was proceeding on the motor cycle. The appellant did not choose to examine any witness to prove that the accident occurred otherwise than as spoken to by PW-2. It could have at least examined the driver of the bus to explain the circumstances under which the accident took place. In the absence of any contra evidence let in by the A.P.S.R.T.C., I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal correctly held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus on being arrived at a proper analysis of the evidence on record and it requires no interference in this appeal. As regards the quantum of compensation, the contention of the A.P.S.R.T.C. is that it is on higher side and not calculated in accordance with law. Whereas, the contention of the respondents/claimants is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is not adequate and requires enhancement. Therefore, this Court has to arrive at the compensation which is just and reasonable by computing the same in accordance with law. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.10 lakhs, against which the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,02,000/-. The deceased was aged 21 years and he was studying B.E. (Mechanical) in J.N.T.U., Mahboobnagar to which there is no dispute. Ex.A-6 marks statement of the deceased shows that he passed intermediate examination in first division. His engineering course marks list Ex.A-7 also shows that he got good marks. Thus, as rightly held by the Tribunal the boy had fair chances of settling in a comfortable position with a good amount of salary. Thus, considering the prospects of the boy who was studying mechanical engineering and the prospects of the said course in future, the learned Tribunal below fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-per month. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant A.P.S.R.T.C. would contend that in the claim petition, the claimants have stated that the deceased boy was studying engineering and getting income of Rs.5,000/-per month and the tribunal therefore, ought to have taken the said amount as the income of the deceased. I absolutely see no force in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-A.P.S.R.T.C. The claimants claimed in the claim petition that the deceased after completing the engineering course could have earned at least Rs.15,000/-to Rs.20,000/-per month. The same is the evidence of PW-1, the mother of the deceased. In any event, this Court has to arrive at a reasonable income keeping in view the future prospects of the deceased and also the uncertainties in life. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants relied on a decision reported in B. RAMULAMMA AND OTHERS v. VENKATESH BUS UNION AND ANOTHER ( 2011 ACJ 1702 )where a division bench of this Court considered the income of the final year student of B.E. computers as Rs.12,000/-per month for the purpose of computing compensation. Following the said decision, I am of the considered view that the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.12,000/-per month for the purpose of computing compensation. Following the said decision, I am of the considered view that the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.12,000/-per month for the purpose of computing compensation. Another question came up for consideration at the hearing of the appeal is about the deductions to be made in the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenditure and also the multiplier to be selected. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants relying on a judgment in P.S. SOMANATHAN AND OTHERS v. DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER AND ANOTHER ( 2011 ACJ 737 ) submitted that as per the said decision, the multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased has to be selected for the purpose of computing compensation and not the multiplier relevant to the mother of the deceased as was taken by the learned Tribunal below. In the said case before the Supreme Court, the deceased was aged 33 years and the claimants are mother aged 65 years, and also brother and sister. The Supreme Court pointed out that the finding of the High Court selecting the multiplier relevant to the age of the mother of deceased and deduction of half of the income is contrary to the ratio laid down in SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ). Here the situation is altogether different. Here the dependants of the deceased are only parents and there is no other dependant who is younger to the mother of the deceased. Therefore, by applying the ratio laid down in SaralaVarma case (cited supra), the deceased being a bachelor, half of the amount has to be deducted towards personal and living expenditure and the multiplier relevant to the age of his mother has to be taken into consideration. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs.12,000/-and the annual income comes to Rs.12,000/-x 12 = Rs.1,44,000/-, from this half of the amount shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenditure which comes to Rs.72,000/-. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the multiplier relevant to the age of the mother (50 years) has to be selected which is ‘13’ as per the judgment in SaralaVarma case (cited supra). The loss of dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.72,000/-x 13 = Rs.9,36,000/-. This apart, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/-towards loss of estate. The loss of dependency of the claimants comes to Rs.72,000/-x 13 = Rs.9,36,000/-. This apart, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses and a further sum of Rs.5,000/-towards loss of estate. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,46,000/-. Therefore, the enhancement in compensation would be Rs.9,46,000/-minus Rs.9,02,000/-= Rs.44,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ Rs.6/-per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. In the result, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the claimants are partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.