Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 31 (AP)

APSRTC, Hyderabad v. N. Latha, Chittoor Dist

2023-01-04

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

body2023
JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/APSRTC, challenging the award dated 12.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.5/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Addl.District Judge, Chittoor, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.12,73,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation for the death of N.Raghu @ Raghavulu in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as parties in the M.V.O.P. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of N.Raghu @ Raghavulu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.09.2012. 4. The facts would show that the 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioners No.2 to 4 are the children, petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased N.Raghu @ Raghavulu. On 12.09.2012 at about 10.45 a.m. the deceased N.Raghu in order to attend his duty as a tiles slab worker at Bangarupalem, while he was proceeding towards Bangarupalem on extreme left side of road on his Bajaj Discovery Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 03 AV 0343 and reached near Tatappagaripalli at about 11.05 a.m., at that juncture, the driver of APSRTC 2 Depot bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2381 belonging to the respondent, and the driver of the said bus, drove the same in a high speed, in rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the motor cycle, and as a result, the right leg below the knee of deceased was cut off, and also sustained other bodily injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Chittoor through 108 ambulance for treatment, but he died at about 12.00 noon due to fatal injuries. A case in Cr.No.132/2012 was registered by Bangarupalem P.S. for the offence punishable U/s.304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code against driver of the crime vehicle. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, and was working as tiles slab worker and earning Rs.400/- per day. Due to sudden death of deceased, the petitioners lost their sole bread winner. The 1st petitioner is also suffering from loss of consortium. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, and was working as tiles slab worker and earning Rs.400/- per day. Due to sudden death of deceased, the petitioners lost their sole bread winner. The 1st petitioner is also suffering from loss of consortium. The petitioners 2 to 4 are suffering from loss of parental care and guidance, and petitioner No.5 is suffering from loss of love and affection, and all the petitioners are suffering from loss of dependency. 5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent/APSRTC, filed counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, age, avocation and monthly income of the deceased, and liability to pay compensation, and contended that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of deceased. The claim of the petitioners is very high and excessive. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2381 of the respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, from whom and to what amount? 3. To what relief? 7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondent/APSRTC, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6 held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, and further taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded a compensation of Rs.12,73,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. 9. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC in the appeal is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus, though the deceased also contributed to the cause of accident. The other contention of the APSRTC is that the Tribunal amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation is excessive, and against the established principles of law. 10. In the light of above contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. The other contention of the APSRTC is that the Tribunal amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation is excessive, and against the established principles of law. 10. In the light of above contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether there was negligence on the part of deceased also for occurrence of accident? 2. Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the established principles of law? 3. To what relief? 11. POINT No.1: The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The contention of the claimants is that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus. The claimants in support of their case have examined an eye witness to the accident, as P.W-2. She deposed that she witnessed the accident and on 12.09.2012 at about 11.05 a.m. she was grazing cows near Tatappagaripalli cross road, and she witnessed the deceased was proceeding towards Bangarupalem side on his motor cycle, and while so, an APSRTC bus came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle, and as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. In the crossexamination, it was elicited that P.W-2 was standing at about four feet distance from main road on left side, and she telephoned for the ambulance. The appellant did not elicit anything to disbelieve her testimony before the Tribunal. 12. The claimants filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR, Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet in C.C.892/2012 on the file of III Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, Ex.A-3 copy of M.V.I.Report, Ex.A-4 copy of post mortem certificate and Ex.A-5 copy of inquest report. It is an admitted fact that the police registered Ex.A-1 FIR soon after the accident, and after investigation, laid a police report (charge sheet) under Ex.A-2 against the driver of the APSRTC bus for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code. No contra evidence was produced by the appellant/APSRTC. It did not choose to examine its driver to speak about the way, in which the accident was occurred to establish that the deceased also contributed to the cause of accident. No contra evidence was produced by the appellant/APSRTC. It did not choose to examine its driver to speak about the way, in which the accident was occurred to establish that the deceased also contributed to the cause of accident. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of driver of the APSRTC bus. Accordingly, the point is answered. 13. POINT No.2: The claimants’ case is that the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident and he was working as a tiles labour, and earning Rs.400/- per day. The Tribunal considered the evidence of P.W-3 examined by the claimants. The evidence of P.W-3 discloses that he is Manager of M/s.Sri Saipriya Tirumala Enterprises, Peddakalva, G.D.Nellore, and the deceased was working as a slab worker in the said firm, and he was paid Rs.400/- per day and to that effect, issued Ex.A-6 stating that the said firm has been paying Rs.400/- per day to the deceased. P.W-3 denied the suggestion of the appellant that the deceased was not working in their firm, and that Ex.A-6 is not supported by any other evidence. Except that, nothing in material was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W-3 to disbelieve the evidence of P.W-3. No contra evidence was produced by the appellant/APSRTC. Considering the evidence of P.W-3 and Ex.A-6 certificate, the Tribunal held that the claimants did not produce any connected registers, and notionally fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month as he was a skilled labour. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the income fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month. 14. The deceased was aged 30 years on the date of accident as per case of the claimants. In Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet, his age was mentioned as 30 years on the date of accident. In post mortem certificate, his age was referred as 30 years. In the inquest report also, his age was mentioned as 30 years. Considering the same, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 30 years as on the date of accident. 15. The Tribunal applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. In the inquest report also, his age was mentioned as 30 years. Considering the same, the Tribunal fixed the age of the deceased as 30 years as on the date of accident. 15. The Tribunal applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 , deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, as there are five dependants i.e., wife, three minor children and mother respectively, which would comes to Rs.6,000 – 1,500 = Rs.4,500/- per month. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.4,500 x 12 = Rs.54,000/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier ‘17’ as the deceased is aged 30 years by the date of accident, and the loss of dependency would be Rs.54,000 x 17 = Rs.9,18,000/-. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency. 16. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of clothes and articles, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium, and Rs.2,00,000/- towards love and affection. The contention of the appellant/APSRTC is that as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the claimants are entitled to only Rs.15,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards consortium by the wife. 17. It is pertinent to note down that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2018 ACJ 2782 held in para 8.7 as follows: “A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, consortium is a compendious term which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relation with the deceased spouse. In legal parlance, consortium is a compendious term which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relation with the deceased spouse. 3 Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of company, society, co- operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. 4 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5 the d. 1979) family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a childs consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count5. However, there was no clarity with Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count5. However, there was no clarity with Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under Loss of Consortium as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” As per the above judgment, the children of the deceased, who are minors are also entitled to consortium @ Rs.40,000/- each, and the amount entitled by the claimants is Rs.15,000 + 15,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 = Rs.1,90,000/-. 18. Further, as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, the claimants are also entitled to loss of future prospects @ 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects and where the deceased was below 40 years. If this is also taken into consideration, the claimants may be entitled to the amount, more than awarded by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant/APSRTC that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation, does not hold any force. 19. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. I do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Ho’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). 20. In the light of above discussion, the contention of the appellant/APSRTC that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation is excessive, and not in accordance with the established principles of law, is not correct. Accordingly, the point is answered. 21. POINT No.3: To what relief? Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). 20. In the light of above discussion, the contention of the appellant/APSRTC that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation is excessive, and not in accordance with the established principles of law, is not correct. Accordingly, the point is answered. 21. POINT No.3: To what relief? In the light of findings on points No.1 and 2, the appeal be dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the award 12.01.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.5/2014 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Addl.District Judge, Chittoor. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.