This appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding of driver negligence based on prosecution evidence and affirmed the compensation quantum and 9% interest rate as within judicial discretion.
Appeal dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD
C.M.A. No.1878 of 2002
Between:
The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant
AND
Vemula Upendra and others .. Respondents
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.465 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal, dated 19-12-2001.
The factual background for the appeal is that Vemula Sammaiah, husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 5 and son of the 6th respondent herein, was involved in a motor accident on 24-01-1999 at about 7.30 P.M., when A.P.S.R.T.C. bus AP 9Z 5667 dashed against his motor cycle AAN 4843, on which he was coming. The bus was being driven in high speed rashly and negligently and the death of Sammaiah was instantaneous. Thorrur police registered Crime No.20 of 1999 against the bus driver and Sammaiah was class-IV contractor with Panchayat Raj Department earning Rs.5,000/- per
month. He was also earning from cultivation of his agricultural lands and he was the Vice President of Kodakandla Mandal Telugu Desam and also President of Masons’ Association. Respondents 1 to 6 claiming to have been deprived of their livelihood due to his death, claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the appellant.
The A.P.S.R.T.C./appellant herein disputed the claim contending that the deceased was coming on the scooter at a high speed rashly and negligently. Though the driver of the bus slowed down the bus on seeing the scooter, the deceased himself dashed against a heap of gravel on the roadside, slipped from the scooter and on his fall, his hand got crushed under the right rear wheel of the bus. As there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver, the appellant contended that the claim should be negatived.
The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants for compensation and examined P.W.1 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 during the course of enquiry.
The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report, Ex.A.2 charge-sheet and Ex.A.3 inquest panchanama regarding the manner of the accident. The Tribunal noted that even the driver examined as R.W.1, admitted that an enquiry was conducted against him by his own department and that the criminal case filed by the police was pending against him. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal arrived at the age of the deceased as 48 years as stated in the post-mortem certificate Ex.A.4 and the inquest report Ex.A.3. The Tribunal considered the deceased to be only a mason due to his
caste and profession and calculated the probable income, which he would have earned at Rs.85/- per day and Rs.2,210/- per month, if he had worked for 26 days. On such an income, applying a multiplier of 13 referable to the age of the deceased, the loss of earnings was calculated at Rs.3,44,760/- and after deducting one-third of the same towards personal expenses of the deceased, which he would have incurred had he been alive, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,29,840/- under that head, apart from Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant and Rs.15,000/- to all the claimants towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, as the compensation claimed by the claimants was only Rs.2,50,000/-, the award was confined to only Rs.2,50,000/- and the amount was directed to be paid with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit or realization and also costs.
The appellant challenges the said award in this appeal contending that the conclusion about the rashness and negligence of the bus driver was not correct in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence. The appellant reiterated the claim that it was the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself of the motor cycle that was the cause for the accident, which could not have been avoided by the bus driver in spite of taking the vehicle to the extreme left side of the road and duly applying brakes and stopping the bus. The appellant also contended that the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle were not included, due to which the petition should fail in the absence of necessary parties and the calculation of the notional income, application of the multiplier and award of interest were also challenged by the appellant.
The appeal was dismissed for default against the 6th
respondent by the order of this Court, dated 25-09-2008 and no steps have been taken for restoration of the appeal against the 6th respondent.
Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel for the respondents.
The point for consideration in the appeal is whether the claimants are entitled to compensation and if so, to what quantum and with what interest ?
Point:
In so far as the conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the bus being the cause for the accident is concerned, the statutory investigating agency after independent investigation, had prosecuted the bus driver for an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code before the competent criminal Court, which was admitted by the driver himself as R.W.1. The driver, who was subjected to departmental enquiry by the appellant in respect of the incident in question, tried to claim innocence as R.W.1, but such an interested and uncorroborated claim cannot be preferred to the circumstances disclosed not only by Ex.A.2 charge-sheet but further strengthened also by the allegations in the earliest version Ex.A.1 first information report and further supported by the opinion of independent panchayatdars under Ex.A.3 inquest report. The report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector in Ex.A.5 also does not, in any manner, suggest the scene of the accident to be probablising contributory negligence of the deceased himself to have led to the accident and the alleged fall of the deceased on a heap of gravel in confusion was rightly considered by the Tribunal to be improbable on the facts and
circumstances of the case. Therefore, the driver of the bus being the cause for the accident, the vicarious liability of the appellant to justly and adequately compensate the dependents of the deceased cannot be in doubt. The relationship of the claimants 1 to 6 with the deceased is not in dispute and their dependence on the deceased for their livelihood is not only in tune with the ordinary and natural course of human events but also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 on oath before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 48 years with reference to Ex.A.4 post-mortem certificate and Ex.A.3 inquest report and the medical expert assessing the age approximately correctly cannot be in doubt and in the absence of any other evidence, acceptance of the same by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. Though P.W.1 claimed that her husband was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a contractor, the Tribunal did not agree with her and the earnings of the deceased as a mason were calculated at Rs.85/- per day, which was not shown to be, in any manner, higher than the minimum wages to which such masons would have been entitled at the relevant time under the Minimum Wages Act. The application of multiplier at 13 was also not shown to be, in any way, improper or illegal and the assessment of loss of earnings of the deceased and loss of support for the claimants on that basis, therefore, cannot be faulted. Grant of Rs.15,000/towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses are at generally accepted scales and though the claimants could have got more than Rs.2,50,000/- claimed by them according to such calculation of the Tribunal, which is on conservative side and not on higher side, grant of compensation at Rs.2,50,000/- by the Tribunal cannot be considered as excessive or unreasonable as contended
by the appellant.
Coming to the costs that were awarded, they shall follow the event and in so far as interest granted at 9 per cent per annum is concerned, the learned standing counsel for the appellant referred to Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] wherein the Apex Court awarded interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. However, it is seen from the judgment that grant of interest at 6 per cent per annum in that case on facts was not connected with any provision or principle of law in this regard and there cannot be any doubt that grant of such interest from the date of the petition till realization is in the judicial discretion of the Tribunal. It should also be noted that by filing this appeal, the appellant also obtained interim suspension of the impugned award, subject to deposit of half of the decreetal amount and costs and the claimants were deprived of the remaining half of the compensation for no strong reason since 2001 till now. The ever increasing inflation and the ever decreasing value of rupee would make the compensation to be received now by the claimants to be much less in real terms than what it should have been, had the appellant complied with the decree soon after passing of the award. Grant of interest at 9 per cent per annum on the compensation awarded was not shown to be not in tune with the then prevailing market rates of interest or interest adopted by the banks or other public institutions during the relevant times and grant of such interest in exercise of judicial discretion of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be interfered with at this distance of time.
Apart from the question of legality of any interference with the award in the absence of the 6th respondent before this Court, against whom the appeal was dismissed for default, the appeal
has to fail for the reasons stated above, but in the circumstances without costs.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs.
_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J
Date: 17-08-2010
Svv
[1] 2009 ACJ 1298
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's conclusion regarding rash and negligent driving by the bus driver was correct.
Whether the compensation quantum, calculation of notional income, multiplier, and interest were reasonable.
Whether the absence of the sixth respondent necessitates dismissal of the appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherReferred¶28
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another [1]
The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its Managing Director
Vemula Upendra and others
G. BHAVANI PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
