Appeal against compensation order was partly allowed, adjusting quantum of loss based on salary and multiplier while dep...fic.
Appeal allowed in part; compensation fixed at Rs.13,86,800 with interest @ 7% per annum.
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.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
C.M.A. No. 1856 OF 2004 DT.27 .2. 2013
Between: APSRTC Rep by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyd appellant
And
Guguloth Kanyavathi and others respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K Srinivasa Rao Counsel for respondents 1 to 6: Sri P Kesava Rao
The Court made the following ORDER:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
C.M.A. No. 1856 OF 2004
JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah)
The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant herein and respondents 1 to 6 are the claimants and the respondent no.7 is driver of the vehicle. The claimants filed O.P. No. 294 of 2001 under Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of one Guguloth Jaya Rao @ Jai Rao in an motor vehicle accident on 4.11.2000. The first claimant is wife, the claimants 2 and 3 are minor daughters, claimants 4 and 5 are parents and claimant no.6 is brother of the deceased.
The case of the claimants is that the deceased while working as a Work Inspector in A.P. Housing Board Corporation, Dornakal, used to get a salary of Rs.4,100/- per month on an average and that on 28.10.2000 he got an appointment as Junior Engineer vide order Dis.No.5/139-98-Admn from the Director (Admn), National Water Development Agency, a Government of India Society under Ministry of Water Resources. While so, the deceased met with an accident on 4.11.2000 while he along with his friend were proceeding from Mahabubabad to Edcherla village on the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 20 C 8665 by keeping extreme left side margin of the road and when they reached Kuravi village, the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 2641 driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and coming in a wrong direction dashed the Hero Honda motor cycle, as a result of which the deceased fell down from the vehicle and received serious injuries and died on the spot. On a complaint given by the first claimant/wife, the police,
Mahabubabad Rural registered a case in Crime No. 92 of 2000 and issued FIR marked as Ex.A1. After conducting panchanama and inquest and on completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed marked as Ex.A5. It is contended that if the deceased would have joined the new post, he would have reached higher positions and would have got the salary of Rs.7270/- per month at the initial stages itself.
The Court below, having considered the oral and documentary evidence held that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, taking into consideration Ex.A.8 order of appointment as ‘Junior Engineer’ has arrived at the monthly income of deceased as Rs.10,000/- and annual income as Rs.1,20,000/- and applied the multiplier of 18 and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.14,40,000/- and further granted a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards shock and mental agony, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Consortium to first claimant, Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards damage to clothing and articles, Rs.2,500/- towards and Rs.500/- towards Transport Expenses totaling to Rs.15,48,000/-, however restricted the total compensation to the claim amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing till realization.
Aggrieved by the same, the APSRTC filed this appeal contending that the accident in question does not occur due to negligence of the driver of the bus and it occurred due to fault of the deceased alone. That the Court below erroneously disbelieved the evidence of RW 1 and believed the evidence of PW2. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned it is stated that the deceased was only drawing a salary of Rs.3703/- and without considering the same the Court below has erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month and applied a wrong multiplier of 18 instead of 17.
Heard both sides.
The question that arises for consideration is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus?
Based on the complaint given by the wife of the deceased a case was registered and FIR in Ex.A1 was issued and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. As per the charge sheet, on 4.11.2000 after attending to his work the deceased accompanied by a friend while going on his motorcycle and when he reached road culvert two furlongs away from the Korivi village outskirts, the APSRTC bus driven by its driver/respondent no.7 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in an opposite direction hit the Hero Honda Motor cyclists/deceased nos.1 and 2, resulting both the deceased fell down from the motor cycle on the road and the right side rear tyre of the bus ran over on the head of the deceased no.1 and caused serious injuries to deceased no.2/pillion rider who while shifting to hospital also succumbed to the injuries. That the driver of the bus/accused escaped from the spot and absconded.
Sri Poloju Venkateshwarlu who is an eye witness to the accident was examined as P.W.2 and he was also cited as an eye witness in the charge sheet. In his evidence he stated that on 4.11.2000 he boarded the bus at Korivi and was sitting in the front seat on the other side of the driver and that the driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and that he cautioned him to drive the vehicle slowly, yet he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner by proceeding in extreme wrong side and when it reached near the culvert, after covering 2 furlongs away from the Korivi village outskirts at about 6.45 the bus hit the motor cycle due to which the rider and the pillion rider received fatal injuries and the rider of the motor cycle died on the spot. He was cross examined, wherein he stated that he does not know the deceased prior to the accident and at the time of the accident it was not dark. He also stated that the accident occurred
after crossing the culvert by the deceased and at that time the bus was at a distance of 10 yards yet to reach the culvert.
The driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and he stated that he never hit the Hero Honda vehicle and that the driver of the Hero Honda tried to come out of the road and hit the road edge and due the said impact, the pillion rider fell on the road and died on the spot. That the driver of the Hero Honda was hit by the very Hero Honda and had fallen down along with the motor cycle and he has also sustained injuries. He stated that he is not responsible for the accident and the deceased himself is responsible for the accident.
It is pertinent to note that the driver of the bus has not chosen to give any complaint and has escaped from the scene of offence. In view of the evidence of P.W.2 –eye witness, the FIR and the charge sheet, it cannot be said that there is no fault on the part of the driver of the bus. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the Court below on this issue and hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driver of the driver of the APSRTC bus.
Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute that the deceased was drawing a gross salary of Rs.4179/and net salary of Rs.3783/- per month and it is also not in dispute that the deceased was offered an appointment vide Ex.A8 as Junior Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000/-. Having regard to the facts of the case and keeping in view the future prospects of the deceased his salary can be fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month and upon deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses his salary can safely be fixed at Rs.6,700/- per month and annually it would be Rs.80,400/and on applying the multiplier of 17 in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt SARLA VARMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] , he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.13,66,800/. Since the deceased died on the spot, the claimants are not entitled to compensation of Rs.80,000/- under the head ‘Shock and mental
agony. However, the first respondent is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5000/- towards loss of estate and a sum of Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.13,86,800/- (rupees thirteen lakhs eighty six thousand eight hundred only) along with interest @ 7 % per annum.
Subject to above, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs.
_____________ V ESWARAIAH,J
______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J
DATE:27.2.2013 TVK
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
C.M.A. No. 1856 OF 2004
DT.27 .2. 2013
[1] 2009(3)Supreme 487
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sct. Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport CorporationApplied¶24
Smt SARLA VARMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION 2009(3)Supreme 487
APSRTC Rep by its Managing Director
Guguloth Kanyavathi
V Eswaraiah
B.N.Rao Nalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
