Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1178 (AP)

B. Chinna Seshamma v. APSRTC

2013-12-17

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2013
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is preferred by the appellants-claimants questioning the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge Kurnool vide Award dated 13-10-2006 in M.V.O.P. No. 196 of 2005, wherein the claim of the appellants--claimants was allowed in part awarding compensation of 6,89,884/- together with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The 1st appellant is the mother, the 2nd appellant is the wife and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased B.C. Seshappa. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as stated in the claim petition, are that on 26-01-2005 while B.C. Seshappa was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 21C 7536 on the left side of the road duly following the traffic rules and at about 8.30 p.m. when he reached near Rythu Bazar, C. Camp., Kurnool, RTC bus bearing registration No. AP-10-Z-2265 of Atmakur Depot driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed his motor cycle from behind, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died instantaneously. 3. The Station House Officer, Kurnool Traffic Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 13 of 2005 against the driver of the bus for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC. 4. The claimants further stated that the deceased was aged 40 years and was working as a Teacher in M.P.U.P. School at Pudur Village drawing a monthly salary of 6,500/- apart from getting an amount of 3,000/- per month by running tuitions, that the deceased was contributing his entire salary to the family and that on account of his death, they lost their source of income. They claimed compensation of 20,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased from the respondent. 5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent filed counter denying the material averments made in the claim petition and contended that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he drove his motorcycle on the middle of the road without taking precautionary measures. 5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent filed counter denying the material averments made in the claim petition and contended that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he drove his motorcycle on the middle of the road without taking precautionary measures. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to collusion of two vehicles and as such, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties. The respondent also disputed with regard to the earnings of the deceased. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident dated 26-01-2005 took place near Rythu Bazar, C. Camp., at about 8.30 p.m. was due to rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No. AP-10-Z-2265 (or) there Was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased? 2. Whether the respondent is liable to pay the compensation claimed? If not, what amount it is liable to pay to the petitioners, by virtue of the said accident? 3. To what relief? 7. During the enquiry, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-15 and Ex. X-1 were got marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the respondent, the Conductor of the bus was examined as RW 1, but no document was marked. 8. After going through the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The Tribunal held that the oral evidence on record coupled with the contents of Exs. A-1 to A-5 make it clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal then proceeding to assess the compensation further held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of 6,89,884/- and accordingly, an Award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. 9. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement. 10. The Tribunal then proceeding to assess the compensation further held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of 6,89,884/- and accordingly, an Award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. 9. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased more than 6,321/- per month since the deceased was earning 3,000/- per month by way of running tuitions apart from the monthly regular income. He also contends that the Tribunal had committed an error in not awarding any amount towards future prospects and also under the heads loss of love and affection and loss of estate. 11. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and needs no interference. 12. Admittedly the Tribunal thoroughly considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the accident in this case occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver. This Court having due regard to the evidence brought on record does not find any valid and legitimate reason to interfere with the same. Further, it seems from the Award that except making an averment that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry (sic. bus), no legitimate attempt was made to prove the same. 13. With regard to the question as to what should be the compensation awarded to the appellants it is necessary to delve into the evidence on record. The appellants have claimed compensation of 20,00,000/-. It has been averred that the deceased was working as a teacher in M.P.U.P. School at Pudur Village drawing a monthly salary of 6,500/- apart from getting an amount of 3,000/- per-month by running tuitions. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants got examined PW 4, the Mandal Educational Officer, who deposed that the deceased joined the service on 01-11-2002 and was earning 6,321/- per month as on the date of the accident. PW 4 produced Ex. A-12, salary certificate of deceased. In order to prove the income of the deceased, the claimants got examined PW 4, the Mandal Educational Officer, who deposed that the deceased joined the service on 01-11-2002 and was earning 6,321/- per month as on the date of the accident. PW 4 produced Ex. A-12, salary certificate of deceased. Since the claimants have not produced any documentary proof in support of their case that the deceased was earning 3,000/- by way of tuitions, the same need not be taken into consideration for computing the income of the deceased. As per Ex. A-12, the deceased was drawing a salary of 6,321/- per month and if 200/- is deducted towards professional tax, the net salary of the deceased would be 6,121/- per month. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was aged 40 years, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013(4) ALT 35 (SC) : 2013(2) An. W.R. 101 (SC) : 2013 ACJ 1403, 50% has to be added towards future prospects i.e., 3,060/- giving a total of 9, 181/- per month or 1,10,172 per annum. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2010(1) An. W.R. 402 (SC) : 2009(4) SCJ 91 : III (2009) ACC 708 (SC), as the deceased was 40 years of age, therefore multiplier of 15' would be applicable in the present case and hence, the total loss of dependency comes to 16,52,670/-. As there are four claimants in the present case, therefore one-fourth has to be deducted towards personal expenses and thus, the loss of dependency of the claimants comes to X 12,39,502/-. Added to the aforesaid amount, 1,00,000/- has to be awarded for loss of consortium to the wife, another sum of 1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection and also a sum of 25,000/- for funeral and transportation charges. Thus, the appellants-claimants are entitled to 14,64,502/-. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow this appeal and award compensation of 14,64,502/- together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Out of the said amount, the 1st appellant who is the mother of the deceased is held to be entitled to receive compensation of 1,64,502/-. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow this appeal and award compensation of 14,64,502/- together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Out of the said amount, the 1st appellant who is the mother of the deceased is held to be entitled to receive compensation of 1,64,502/-. The 2nd appellant who is the wife of the deceased is held entitled to receive 7,00,000/- and claimants 3 and 4 children of the deceased namely B. Karthik and B. Venkata Prasad are held entitled to receive compensation of 13,00,000/- each. The share of the minor children shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank till they attain majority. The 2nd appellant is entitled to withdraw the annual interest accrued on the aforesaid amounts to meet the expenses of the minor children. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending consideration shall stand closed. No order as to costs.