Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1062 (TS)

T. PARVATHAMMA v. A. P. S. R. T. C.

2025-09-22

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.2881 of 2018 is filed by the Claimants and M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2018 is filed by the RTC Corporation against order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as ‘Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.628 of 2014, order dated 09.04.2018. The claimants before the Tribunal had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of Sri T.Naresh, (herein after referred as ‘deceased’) who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred on 02.11.2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.11.2013, the deceased along with his colleague were proceeding on Motorcycle bearing No.AP-09-WB-TR-0232 from Nallakunta and when they reached Hyderabad Public School, Ramanthapur, the driver of RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-29-Z-1572 drove the bus in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the deceased motorcycle from behind, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and the deceased died on the spot. The Police, registered a case against the driver of the Bus, vide Crime No.707/2013, under Section 304-A of IPC. 4. The contention of the claimants before the Tribunal was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as ‘Customer Supporting’ in C.M.C., Limited, Gachibowli and due to untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners have become destitute and lost their dependency for which claimants claimed Rs.30,00,000/-, as compensation. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondents filed counter- affidavit, denying the averments made in the petition including the manner of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and also age, occupation and income of the deceased and submitted that due to self- negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred and the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation amount to the petitioners and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioners, PWs Nos.1 and 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioners, PWs Nos.1 and 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of deceased T. Naresh to the rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 1572 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3) To what relief?. 8. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim and granted compensation of Rs.22,28,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 9. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded the claimants prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.2881 of 2018 seeking enhancement of the compensation and the respondent – RTC Corporation prefer M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2018 to set aside the tribunal order. 10. The learned Counsel for the R.T.C. Corporation contended that the learned Tribunal erred in taking income of the deceased at Rs.14,472/- per month even though PW.3 Manager (HR) did not file his authorization letter and service record or bank statement to prove the income of the deceased and also further contended that learned Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the claimants did not make the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as parties to the claim petition and prayed this Court to set aside the Tribunal order dated 09.04.2018 and allow the present appeal filed by the RTC corporation. 11. The claimants averred that prior to the accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years and was hale and healthy and was working as private employee in C.M.C., Limited, however, the Tribunal having accepted the contention of the petitioners that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus and also having accepted the fact that deceased was working in C.M.C., Limited as ‘Customer Supporting’, but the learned Tribunal has taken the notional income of the deceased Rs.14,475/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- per month. 12. 12. The claimants further contended that deceased was aged 25 years and the learned Tribunal ought to have considered future prospects 50% instead of 40% to the income of deceased and further contended that the rate of interest at 7.5% p.a. awarded on the compensation amount is on meager side and ought have granted 9% p.a. on the compensation amount and prays this Court to enhanced the compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal and pass appropriate orders. 13. Heard Sri T. Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the claimants, Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 14. Admittedly, the parties have filed appeal and cross appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age and income of the deceased. Therefore, the points which arose before this Court in the present appeal and cross appeal are that: “i) Whether the respondents have made out any case to exonerated the respondents from liability? ii) Whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased. iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?” Point No.1 15. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on 02.11.2013 and there is no dispute with regard to the involvement of the crime vehicle. The only contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC Corporation was that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the deceased and the deceased died and the learned Tribunal ought to have exonerated the respondents from the liability. However, on keen perusal of evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the petitioners relied upon documentary evidence under Exs.A1 (FIR), A2 (inquest report), A3 (PME report), A4 (charge sheet) and A5 (MVI Report) except oral contention that there was self negligence on the part of the deceased in causing accident, the respondents failed to adduce any evidence in support of their contention. If at all there was any self or contributory negligence on part of the deceased in causing the accident, certainly there would have been an averment in Ex.A4 charge sheet to that extent. But there is no such instance in the case on hand, as the concerned Police after thorough investigation filed Ex.A4 charge sheet holding the driver of the RTC Bus alone responsible for the accident. But there is no such instance in the case on hand, as the concerned Police after thorough investigation filed Ex.A4 charge sheet holding the driver of the RTC Bus alone responsible for the accident. Thus, the learned Tribunal after considering the above oral and documentary evidence has rightly arrived to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, accordingly, the respondents cannot be exonerated from liability to pay compensation to the claimants. Hence, point No.1 is answered in favour of claimants and against respondents. Point No.2 and 3. 16. As far as compensation of the claimants are concerned, the claimants claimed that the deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioners got examined PW.3, who issued Ex.A6-salary certificate and PW.3 categorically deposed that the deceased joined their company and worked till the date of accident. He further deposed that deceased was contract employee and his tenure was renewed every year and Ex.A6 was issued by him. 17. On a keen perusal of the Ex.A6 – Salary Certificate for the month of October, 2013, it is noticed that deceased was drawing a gross income of Rs.15,586/- including the ‘one time bonus per year’ for an amount of Rs.5,224/, eventually, the deceased will be getting an gross income of Rs.10,362/- (Rs.15,586/- – Rs.5,224/-) per month without bonus. However, the learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased was earning Rs.10,362/- per month in the paragraph No.10 of the order but erroneously taken the net income of the deceased as Rs.14,475/- instead of Rs.10,362/- per month. 18. In this connection, it is relevant to look into the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yerramma v. G.Krishna Murthy , (2014) SCC 65 , whereas it held that ‘Gross Salary’ ought to have been taken after deducting 10% towards Income Tax and the relevant paragraph Nos.14 & 15 which reads as below for easy reference: 14. The Tribunal on examining the salary slip of the deceased for the month of April, 2011 determined the salary of the deceased at Rs.21,168/- per month after deducting towards P.T. and other statutory deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.21,168/- per month as the salary of the deceased. The High Court in its impugned judgment and order affirmed the same. The Tribunal on examining the salary slip of the deceased for the month of April, 2011 determined the salary of the deceased at Rs.21,168/- per month after deducting towards P.T. and other statutory deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.21,168/- per month as the salary of the deceased. The High Court in its impugned judgment and order affirmed the same. We are of the view, that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the net salary of the deceased taken by the Tribunal and the High Court for determination of loss of dependency is erroneous as it is not in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in this regard. Therefore the same is liable to be set aside as it has to be properly determined by taking gross income of the deceased. It is clear that the gross income of the deceased at the time of his death as per his salary slip was Rs.26,000/- per month. Therefore, we are of the view that a just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of dependency has not been determined by the courts below. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is vitiated both on account of erroneous finding and error in law. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.26,000/- per month. The High Court and the Tribunal have taken the net salary at Rs.21,168/- per month, thereby the Courts below have erred in making deductions from the gross salary of the deceased towards P.T. of Rs.200/- and other statutory deductions and therefore, arriving at Rs.21,168/- per month as the net salary of the deceased is erroneous in law. Therefore, we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not following the rules laid down by this Court in Indira Srivastava’s (supra) in not taking gross income of the deceased to determine the loss of dependency 15 The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death as per salary slip produced on record was Rs.26,000/- per month and after deducting 10% towards income tax, net income comes to Rs.23,400/- per month. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,80,800/-. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would be Rs.2,80,800/-. Deducting 1/4th of this amount towards his personal expenses by applying the principle as laid down by this Court in Sarla Verma case (supra), the balance amount comes to Rs.2,10,600/-[(2,80,800/- – Rs.70,200/- (1/4th of Rs.2,80,800/-)]. Therefore, the loss of dependency of the appellants by applying the appropriate multiplier of 11, according to the rules laid down by this Court in the Sarla Verma comes to Rs.23,16,600/- (Rs.2,10,600/- X 11).” 19. In view of judgment, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yerramma v. G.Krishna Murthy (cited supra), this Court is inclined to modify the monthly income of the deceased as granted by the Tribunal from Rs.14,475/- to Rs.9,326/- (Rs.10,362/- 10%) per month and the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,11,912/- (Rs.9,326/- x 12) and Rs.5,224/- would be added to the annual of the deceased, as the deceased would get yearly bonus of Rs.5,224/-, then the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,17,136 (Rs.1,11,912/- + Rs.5,224/-) 20. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , [ 2017 ACJ 2700 ] and taking the age of the deceased as 25 years as on the date of the accident, additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the annual income of the deceased. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,63,991/- (Rs.1,17,136/- + Rs.46,855/-), out of which, 50% has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as deceased was bachelor as claimed by the petitioners at the time of the accident. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.81,995.5/- (Rs.16,3991/- (-) Rs.81,995.5/-). 21. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) , and considering the age of the deceased as 25 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased’s age is ‘18’. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,75,919/- (Rs.81995.5/- x 18). 22. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses, as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram , 2018 (18) SCC 130 . 23. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,75,919/- (Rs.81995.5/- x 18). 22. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses, as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram , 2018 (18) SCC 130 . 23. The petitioner Nos.1 & 2 being the parents of the deceased, they are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- under the head of ‘loss of filial consortium’, as per Magma’s Judgment (cited supra) 24. The petitioner No. 3 being the unmarried sister of the deceased, she is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of ‘loss of sibling consortium’ as per Magma’s Judgment (cited supra) 25. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference 26. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows: i) Annual Income (of the deceased) Rs.9326/- X 12 = Rs.1,11,912/- + Rs.5,224/- (Bonus) Total Annual income = Rs.1,17,136/- ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) = Rs.117136/- + Rs.46,854/- = Rs.163991/- iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income – 50% deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,63,991/- (–) Rs.81,995.5/- = Rs.81,995.5/- iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.81,995.5 x 18 = Rs.14,75,919/- v) Claimants’ entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of filial consortium + sibling consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.96,800/- + Rs.48,400 = Rs.1,81,500/- Total Rs.16,57,419/- 27. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A.No.2881 of 2018 filed by the claimants is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.3450 of 2018 filed by the respondents/RTC Corporation is allowed in part, by reducing the compensation from Rs.22,28,600/- to Rs. 16,57,419/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand and Four Hundred and Nineteen Rupees only) with interest @ 9% p.a . on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. 16,57,419/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand and Four Hundred and Nineteen Rupees only) with interest @ 9% p.a . on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. 28. However, it is made clear that, if the claimants had already withdrawn the excess compensation amount, if any, the RTC Corporation is not entitled to recover the same from the claimants. There shall be no order as to costs 29. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.