Partly allowed

A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Gandla Chinna Rajulu [Died]

Telangana HC7 Dec 2010MACMA/1337/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court partially allowed appeals and cross objections against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court reduced compensation from Rs.4,13,000 to Rs.3,68,600 by adjusting the multiplier to 18 and reducing notional income based on land acres. The distinguishing feature was the rejection of claimants' evidence as speculative compared to investigating officer findings.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs.4,13,000 to Rs.3,68,600. Minor entitled for Rs.3,00,000; mother-in-law entitled for Rs.68,600.

A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Gandla Chinna Rajulu [Died] — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.1337 of 2007

¶3

and

¶4

Cross Objections (SR).No.44040 of 2007

¶5

Date: 07.12.2010

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No.1337 of 2007 : Between: A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. … Appellants And Gandla Chinna Rajulu and others. … Respondents XOBJ(SR).No.44040 of 2007 : Between: Gandla Chinna Rajulu and others. … Appellants And A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶8

M.A.C.M.A.No.1337 of 2007 and Cross Objections (SR).No.44040 of 2007

¶9

COMMON JUDGMENT :

¶10

This appeal and cross objections are filed by A.P. State Road Transport Corporation/owner of the accident vehicle and the claimants, respectively, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, in O.P.No.1131 of 2004, by Award dated 01.11.2006. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,13,000/- to the claimants as against their claim of Rs.8,00,000/-. Even though three claimants filed the claim petition before the lower Tribunal originally, the 1^st claimant, who was husband of the deceased, died pending adjudication of the claim. Thus, practically only two dependents are there on the deceased, namely mother-in-law and daughter.

¶11

2. The accident took place on 10.7.2004, when the deceased Gandla Lakshmi was travelling in Jeep bearing No.AP-25T-7999 from Yellareddy towards Kamareddy at about 10-00 a.m., near Sub-Station, Lingampet, R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 11Z 1126 came in opposite direction. There was a collision between both the vehicles, due to which the deceased fell down from the jeep and died on the spot. The lower Tribunal found that driver of R.T.C. bus was at fault. In fact, the claim was made only against A.P.S.R.T.C. before the lower Tribunal. Persons relating to the jeep are not impleaded before the lower Tribunal in the claim petition. P.W.2 was one of the eye witnesses examined by the

¶12

claimants. R.W.1 is the bus driver of the accident bus. According to R.W.1 there was ‘S’ turn near Lingampet Bus Stand and the jeep came at high speed in opposite direction and dashed his bus. According to R.W.1, the jeep driver fled away from there. R.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave report. After investigation, the police found that R.W.1 was at fault and was responsible for this accident and filed charge sheet against him. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that he was standing in front of a hotel at that time and that there was a curve near the place of accident and that after that curve the accident took place. According to him, the place of accident is about 100 yards from the curve and it is a double road. According to P.W.2, jeep driver was at the place of accident and the bus driver went to the Police Station. According to P.W.2, the bus driver was at fault. He says that he was standing at a distance of 5 or 6 yards from the place of accident. P.W.2 is an independent witness when compared to R.W.1. Evidence of R.W.1 is self-serving. Whereas P.W.2 has no favour to anybody. The lower Tribunal rightly accepted the evidence of P.W.2 in preference to that of R.W.1 and rightly found that the bus driver was at fault. The conclusion of the lower Tribunal is also in accordance with the findings of the investigating officer in the criminal case. Therefore, I do not find any circumstances to come to the conclusion that the jeep driver was at fault or that jeep driver contributed any negligence for this accident.

¶13

3. The lower Tribunal arrived at income of the deceased woman from her Acs.2-00 of land as Rs.3,000/- per month and selected ‘17’ as multiplier from II-Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶14

4. It is contended by the cross-objectors’ counsel that as per Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporatio n^[1] , the multiplier should have been ‘18’ and not ‘17’ for the age of 23 years of the deceased. The appellants’ counsel contended that notional income of Rs.3,000/- per

¶15

month taken by the Tribunal is on higher side. Except filing Ex.A-7 photostat copy of pass book for the land held by the deceased, the claimants did not file any copies of No.2/3 Adangals to show what were the crops raised by the deceased in her lands and what was the extent of yield therefrom. Instead, the claimants examined P.W.3, Sarpanch of the village and filed his income certificate as Ex.A-5. Either for evidence of P.W.3 or for Ex.A-5, there is no factual basis or data. Such evidence cannot be taken note of, particularly when there is possibility of documentary proof, like copies of Adangals.

¶16

5. The claimants’ counsel placing reliance on State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur^[2] contended that the Supreme Court had fixed the income of an agriculturist at Rs.3,000/- per month and that, therefore, the same amount may be taken into consideration even in the case of the deceased herein also. But, the Supreme Court notionally fixed the said income of Rs.3,000/- per month from Acs.4-00 of land. The deceased, in the present case, was having only Acs.2-00 of land. According to the claimants, the deceased was a house wife.

¶17

6. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that notional income of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.2,400/per month. 1/3^rd thereof is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. So, the amount available with the dependents would be Rs.1,600/- per month. Pecuniary compensation comes to Rs.1,600/x 12 x 18 = 3,45,600/-. Apart from that the deceased-1^st claimant, who is husband of the deceased in this case, is entitled for Rs.10,000/towards loss of consortium. The dependents are also entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges. Total non-pecuniary compensation comes to Rs.23,000/. Thus, total compensation amount

¶18

comes to Rs.3,68,600/-, out of which the minor-3^rd claimant is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- and the 2^nd claimant/mother-in-law is entitled for Rs.68,600/-. The 2^nd claimant/mother-in-law is entitled to withdraw her share of compensation amount.

¶19

7. In the result, the appeal and the cross objections are partly allowed without costs, altering the compensation amount from Rs.4,13,000/- to Rs.3,68,600/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty eight thousand six hundred only), as indicated above.

¶20

___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶21

07.12.2010. Msr

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶23

M.A.C.M.A.No.1337 of 2007

¶24

and Cross Objections (SR).No.44040 of 2007

¶25

07.12.2010 (Msr)