Dismissed

Apsrtc v. O.Lakshmi

Telangana HC2 Jul 2013MACMA/299/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two appeals arose from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award regarding death caused by rash and negligent driving. The Court dismissed the Corporation's appeal against the award amount and denied the petitioners' request for enhancement, holding the compensation just given the deceased's salary and the wife's employment.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed; the Miscellaneous Petitions were ordered closed.

Apsrtc Vs O.Lakshmi — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.299 of 2006 and 2997 of 2005

¶3

Dated : 02.07.2013

¶4

M.A.C.M.A.No.299 of 2006

¶5

Between:
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation .. Appellant
And
O.Lakshmi and two others .. Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.No.2997 of 2005
Between:
O.Lakshmi and another .. Appellants
And
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another .. Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶7

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.299 of 2006 and 2997 of 2005

¶8

COMMON JUDGMENT :

¶9

1. Both these appeals arise out of the decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirupati in M.V.O.P.No.238 of 2002.

¶10

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.299 of 2006 is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.2997 of 2005 is filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Both appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. Parties are referred to as arrayed in Claims Tribunal.

¶11

3. On 18.12.2001 when the deceased was standing on the extreme margin of the left side of the road supervising the work of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, driver of the crime vehicle drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and tried to overtake the bus in a wrong direction and directly hit the deceased who succumbed to injuries and died on 23.12.2001. Since no compensation was paid by the Corporation, wife, minor son (six months old) and mother of the deceased instituted the M.V.O.P claiming compensation of Rs.15,56,750/-. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.8,13,660/-. The age of the deceased was declared as 35 years 6 months as on the date of his death and he was an employee of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. It was stated that he was drawing salary of Rs.6,095.10 ps.

¶12

4. The Claims Tribunal formulated three issues for consideration:

¶13

1. Whether the deceased P.Sankar Naidu, husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and son of petitioner No.3, died in the motor vehicle accident that took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 6227 on 18.12.2001 ?

¶14

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount?

¶15

3. To what relief ?

¶16

5. The award of the learned Tribunal is challenged by the Corporation on three grounds :

¶17

1. Contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

¶18

2. The Tribunal erred in taking the gross salary instead of net salary.

¶19

3. The age of the deceased ought to have been taken as 40 in view of the age mentioned in the post-mortem report and thus erred in applying multiplier of ‘16’ instead of ‘12’. In other words the contention of the Corporation is, compensation awarded is excessive.

¶20

6. The petitioners challenge the award of the Claims Tribunal on the ground that compensation awarded is insufficient. It is contended that learned Tribunal erred in not taking into account future income prospects in determining the amount of compensation.

¶21

7. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held that accident caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of APSRTC bus and thus APSRTC has become liable to compensate the dependants of the deceased and determined the compensation.

¶22

8. Heard the learned counsels for petitioners and respondent corporation. 9. Though a feeble attempt is made to allege that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the evidence on record clearly established the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased, who was standing on extreme margin of the left side of the road. No evidence is lead by the corporation to prove that there was contributory negligence by deceased. Evidence on record discloses that as part of his duties, the deceased was standing on extreme road margin at the place of the incident and driver of respondent was responsible for the accident. Corporation failed to bring out evidence to prove its allegation. Thus, respondent failed in discharging its burden to prove the allegation of contributory negligence. 10. With reference to determination of amount of compensation, two aspects are relevant i.e., the income and age of the deceased. The deceased was an employee of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. Salary certificate marked as Ex.A5 issued by the competent authority of Devasthanam disclosed

¶23

that he was drawing a salary of Rs.6,095/- before his death. The learned Tribunal considered the gross salary drawn by deceased as the relevant amount of income for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. From out of Rs.73,140/- as salary payable for one year, 1/3^rd was deducted as personal expenses of the individual and therefore, Rs.48,760/- was treated as loss of future income.

¶24

11. For the purpose of applying the multiplier, learned Tribunal treated the age of deceased as 35 years 6 months based on the entry in service record of deceased maintained by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and applied multiplier 16. There is no merit in the contention of respondent Corporation on determination of age and multiplier as 16.

¶25

12. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondent Corporation that the wife of the deceased was provided compassionate appointment and therefore, there is no loss of future income to the dependants. Relying on the decision of this Court in G.VARALAKSHMI AND OTHERS V. A.P.S.R.T.C.,

¶26

HYDERABAD^[1] , the learned Tribunal held that merely because the compassionate appointment is provided, it cannot be a substitute in arriving the future prospects of employment of the deceased and future loss of income. However, taking note of the fact that the wife of the deceased was employed the actual salary drawn by the individual is taken as basis, I see no error in the decision of learned Tribunal in awarding compensation.

¶27

13. In view of the above findings, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Corporation and appeal fails.

¶28

14. The deceased was drawing gross salary of Rs.6,095/- before his death. The Tribunal considered the same as the basis to determine the loss of future earnings and arrived at the compensation figured thereon. Having regard to the fact that the wife of the deceased was provided compassionate appointment by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just compensation and the petitioners are not entitled to seek enhancement of compensation.

¶29

15. On all the issues urged by the appellants in both appeals, the learned Tribunal has come to correct conclusion. I see no merit in the appeals and both

¶30

the appeals are dismissed.

¶31

The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Appeals shall

¶32

stand closed.

¶33

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J July 2^nd , 2013. SSP

¶34

[1] 2000(6) ALT 284

Apsrtc v. O.Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsrtc v. O.Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.J.Jayaram, Vs Dharmavaram Cooperative Town Bank

M.Changal Raju, Vs Mukesh Kumar Meena

Rallabai Chandrappa Vs C Narsimlu

C. Suryanarayana Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh.Energy Department

Soudani Bommna Yadav, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Korada Durga Rao, Vs Y.Subhash Reddy