Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 506 (TS)

Vasam Soujanya v. A. P. L. Research Centre

2022-08-02

G.SRI DEVI, M.G.PRIYADARSINI

body2022
JUDGMENT : G. Sri Devi, J. 1. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted in the award and decree, dated 01.12.2014 passed in M.V.O.P. No.855 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/petitioners 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 petitioners, who are the wife, son and parents of one Dr.V.Venkat Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") filed a petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 23.08.2010 while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 24 AA 3650 from Paradise side towards Bowenpally side and when he reached Balam Raj Cross Roads near Check Post, one bus bearing No.AP 09 W 5099, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and died on the spot. On a complaint, the Police, Bowenpally, registered a case in Crime No. 352 of 2010 against the driver of the bus. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the petitioners filed the claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said bus. 4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition including the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. It is specifically contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It is also stated that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. It is specifically contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It is also stated that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 23.08.2010 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., private bus bearing No.AP 09 W 5099 and whether the deceased Dr.V. Venkat Kumar died due to the said accident? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what quantum and whether crime vehicle was owned by first respondent and insured with second respondent and what is the liability of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1-policy copy was marked. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners would submit that though there is ample evidence adduced by the petitioners that the deceased was having multifold income, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- per month only basing on Ex.A14. It is also submitted that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , the petitioners are also entitled to future prospects and also Rs. 77,000/- under conventional heads. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the issue with regard to the future prospects has been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (1 supra) and as per that judgment, the claimants are entitled 40% amount towards future prospects. 77,000/- under conventional heads. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the issue with regard to the future prospects has been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (1 supra) and as per that judgment, the claimants are entitled 40% amount towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under conventional heads is excessive and the same is to be reduced. 11. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No. 1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing No.AP 09 W 5099 by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A1 and A5, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing No.AP 09 W 5099 and has answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Therefore, we 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 Bus bearing No.AP 09 W 5099. 12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly the deceased was an E.N.T. Surgeon and was aged about 31 years at the time of the accident. P.W.3 in his evidence deposed that the deceased used to work as Arogyasri Empanelment Doctor and as per the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6, the deceased was working as Assistant Professor, Medicity, Hyderabad and also working in Chairtanya Nursing Home, Warangal. However, the learned Tribunal has brushed aside the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 and taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.6 coupled with Ex.A14-pay slip issued by the Medcity Hospital authorities soon before his death, has taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 40,000/- per month. Even according to the evidence of P.W.6, the deceased was working as Assistant Professor in Medcity Hospital and had he been alive he would have been the Assistant Professor within five years and later Professor in nine years depending upon the seniority. He also deposed that there is no ban for private practice after working hours. 40,000/- per month. Even according to the evidence of P.W.6, the deceased was working as Assistant Professor in Medcity Hospital and had he been alive he would have been the Assistant Professor within five years and later Professor in nine years depending upon the seniority. He also deposed that there is no ban for private practice after working hours. Admittedly, according to the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 the deceased was also working on part time basis in their respective hospitals apart from working in Medciti Hospital. Taking into consideration the experience of the deceased as E.N.T. surgeon, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken atleast an amount of Rs. 12,000/- towards other source of income apart from the salary of Rs. 40,000/- as E.N.T. surgeon in Medicity Hospital. Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 52,000/- per month. Apart from the same, the petitioners are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 72,800/- (Rs.52,000/- + Rs. 20,800/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) as the dependents are four in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs. 54,600/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 31 years, in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (2 supra) the suitable multiplier would be 16'. Applying multiplier 16', the total loss of dependency would be Rs. 54,600/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 1,04,83,200/-. The petitioners are also entitled to Rs. 77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Thus, in all the appellants are entitled to Rs. 1,05,60,200/-. 13. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs. 60,00,000/- to Rs. 1,05,60,200/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.