Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 592 (TS)

TSRTC v. Borra Manjula

2025-05-02

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. M.A.C.M.A is filed by the RTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 29.08.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.999 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar (for short “the Tribunal”). Cross Objection No.60 of 2023 is filed by the claimants. 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 02.02.2015 at about 07.00 P.M., Borra Jangaiah @ Jagan along with his daughters viz., Sravanthi, Keziya and Vinjamuri Vijay were proceeding towards Polepally village to attend the function of relatives from Balapur Village on his bike bearing No. AP-29-BG- 5802 and when they reached near Suchira Dhaba, Ibrahmipatnam at about 07.00 P.M., in the mean time, the driver of the CBZ bike bearing No.AP-29-BM-6482 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the bike of the deceased in opposite direction due to which the deceased and his daughters fell on the road and at the same time the RTC bearing 2 No.AP-29Z-2589 which was proceeding from Ibrahimpatnam to Yacharam, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner ran over the fallen people, as a result Jangaiah died on the spot while his two daughters sustained fracture injuries. It is their case that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bike and also due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2589 and thus claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. Respondent No.3- the driver of the RTC bus has filed counter denying the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased and also the occurrence of the accident. It is his contention that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the CBZ motor bike. 6. Respondent No.4 filed counter denying the averments of the petition and they further contended that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that their bus is not involved in the accident. 6. Respondent No.4 filed counter denying the averments of the petition and they further contended that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and that their bus is not involved in the accident. It is their contention that while the bus was moving, the driver heard the noise and after hearing the said noise, he stopped the bus and got down and verified the reason for the said sound and then he found that the deceased fell down from the motor bike while overtaking the bus without precautionary measures at a high speed and colluded with another motor bike and fell down. Thus their contention is that there was no negligence of the bus driver in occurrence of the accident. 7. Based on the above rival pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the deceased/B.Jangaiah @ Jagan died in the accident occurred on 02.02.2015, due to contributory negligence on the part of both vehicles i.e., RTC bus bearing No.AP-29Z-2589 and CBZ bike bearing No.AP-29 Z-2589 and CBZ bike bearing No.AP-29-BM- 6482? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, from whom and what amount? 3. To what relief ? 8. At the time of trial, petitioners got examined P.Ws.1 and 2, got marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.14,50,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree dated 29.08.2019, the present M.A.C.M.A is filed by the RTC. 10. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC and Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs.14,50,000/- towards compensation, fastening the liability against RTC. He argued that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the rider of the CBZ bike No. AP-29-BM-6482 and that there was no negligence of the RTC bus driver. He argued that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the rider of the CBZ bike No. AP-29-BM-6482 and that there was no negligence of the RTC bus driver. He further argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased due to the fact that he was proceeding along with his two daughters and another person on the motor bike and thus he could not control the bike which resulted in the accident. He further argued that no eye witness was examined to prove the accident and the tribunal has wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus. He further argued that the Tribunal wrongly granted exorbitant compensation and prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal has granted meager amount of compensation and prayed to enhance the same. 13. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether there was any negligence on part of the deceased in the occurrence of the accident? 2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 3. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 4. To what relief? 14. POINT NO.1: a) It is the contention of the RTC that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and also due to the rash and negligence of the rider of the bike bearing No. AP-29 Z-2589. A perusal of the F.I.R and charge sheet under Exs.A.1 and A.2 would reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the rider of the CBZ bike and also due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver. The charge sheet is filed against both of them. P.W.2 was examined by the petitioners as an eye witness. The charge sheet is filed against both of them. P.W.2 was examined by the petitioners as an eye witness. He deposed that he was travelling in the bus bearing No. AP-29Z-2589 and that deceased is his brother-in-law proceeding along with his daughters and when they reached Suchitra Dhaba, CBZ bike driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the bike of the deceased due to which the deceased and his two daughters fell down and at the same time, the RTC bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner ran over the deceased and his daughters. In his cross- examination it is elicited that at the time of accident, the deceased and the bus were travelling in the same direction and that the deceased over took the bus and he further admitted that in the mean time CBZ Bike bearing No.AP-29-BM-6482 came in the opposite direction and dashed against the deceased. Thus it is clear from the evidence on record that the bike of the deceased, after overtaking the bus was hit by another bike coming in opposite direction as a result of which the deceased and his daughters fell down and immediately the bus which is coming from behind ran over them. Thus it is evident that there was rash and negligence on part of the rider of the motor bike bearing No.AP-29-BM 6482 and also the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus could not avert the accident though he could see that the deceased and his children fell on the road as they were hit by the opposite bike. Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the rider of CBZ bike and also the RTC driver. Thus no contributory negligence can be attributed to the deceased. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 15. POINT NO.2: (b) It is contended by the RTC that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive while the claimants seek enhancement of compensation. According to the petitioner the deceased was aged about 33 years and was working as a plumber and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 15. POINT NO.2: (b) It is contended by the RTC that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive while the claimants seek enhancement of compensation. According to the petitioner the deceased was aged about 33 years and was working as a plumber and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , [(2011) 12 SCC 236] , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. In the said case, deceased used to work as a labourer and the accident occurred in the year 2004 but in the present case, deceased used to work as a plumber and the accident occurred in 2015. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- on a reasonable hypothesis. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month. c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others , [2AIR 2017 SCC 5157] , 40% of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. A perusal of the P.M.E report/Ex.A.3 reveals that the deceased was aged 30 years. Therefore, adding 40% towards future prospects would give Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/-x 40/100 = 3,200/-) per month, which comes to Rs.11,200/- x 12 = Rs.1,34,400/- per annum. d) The number of claimants herein are five and therefore, 1/5 th deduction need to be made to his income towards personal expenses and this would come up to Rs.1,07,520/- (Rs.1,34,400/- (-) Rs.26,880/-). e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A.3 reveals the age of the deceased as 30 years. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , 2009 (6) SCC 121 The deceased being aged 30 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘17’. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes upto Rs.18,27,840/- (Rs.1,07,520/- X 17= Rs.18,27,840/-). f) In the light of Pranay Sethi ’s case, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes upto Rs.18,27,840/- (Rs.1,07,520/- X 17= Rs.18,27,840/-). f) In the light of Pranay Sethi ’s case, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. It was further held that the said amounts have to be enhanced by 10% for every three years. g) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] , the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi ’s case and has further held that the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.2,42,000/- (Rs.48,400/- X 5 = Rs.2,42,000/-). Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses have to be awarded. Therefore, claimants are entitled for the compensation in the following terms: 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 18,27,840/- 2. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/- 3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/- 4. Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,42,000/- TOTAL Rs. 21,06,140/- h) Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.14,50,000/- to that of Rs.21,06,140/- which would be justified in the present case. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 16. POINT NO.3: In view of the finding arrived at point Nos.1 & 2, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified and accordingly compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.14,50,000/- is enhanced to Rs.19,10,300/-. POINT NO.4: 17. In the result, the MACMA filed by the TSRTC is dismissed and Cross Objection No.60 of 2023 filed by the claimants is allowed by modifying the Order and Decree dated 29.08.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.999 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, enhancing the compensation from Rs.14,50,000/- to Rs.21,06,140/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Appellants- TSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, claimants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. The claimants are also directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.