Allowed

B .Ramakrishna and 4 Others v. Apsrtc, Rep.by Its Md, Musheerabad, Hyd and Anotehr

Telangana HC8 Sept 2022MACMA/1123/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed appeal against order restricting compensation to Rs.3,00,000. Court held that Section 163A claims must be assessed per Schedule II formula. Award enhanced to Rs.3,64,500 plus interest, distinguishing no-fault from fault liability heads.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.3,00,000 to Rs.3,64,500 with interest; respondents directed to deposit within one month.

B .Ramakrishna and 4 Others Vs Apsrtc, Rep.by Its… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

I I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

M.A.C.M.A. No: 1123 OF 2011

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree made in O.P. No. 67 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) -cum-XlX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

r B. Ramakrishna, S/o Late Bal Raj Labour

¶11

B.Mangamma, D/o Late Bal Raj R/o 22-6-393, Miralammandi, Hyderabad

¶12

B.Hari, S/o Late Bal Raj Rl/o 22-6-393, Miralammandi, Hyderabad.

¶13

B. Sreekanth, S/o Late Bal Raj R/o 22-6-393, Miralammandi, Hyderabad.

¶14

B.Govardhan, S/o Late Bal Raj Rl/o 22-6-393, Miralammandi, Hyderabad.

¶15

...Appellants/Claimants

¶16

AND

¶17

1 APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶18

2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rajendranagar, Depot, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District

¶19

,..Respondents/Respondents

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 OF 201I(MACMAMP. NO: 2047 OF 20111

¶21

Petition under Section 15 1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners/Appellants to amend the claim from Rs. 3,00,0001 to 4,2O,OOOI- or Rs. 5,00,000/- in the claim petition in Op.No. 67 t2OO8 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) - cum - XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

¶22

For the Appellants : Sri C. Mohan Prakash, Advocate

¶23

For the Respondents: Sri N. Praveen Reddy (SC For TSRTC)

¶24

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶27

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1123 of 2O11

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in the decree and^judgment dated 22.O1 .2OlO in O.P.No.67 of 2008 passed by the M.A.C.T. - cum - V Additional Metropolitan Se'ssions Judge (Mahila Court) - cum - XIX Add1. Chicl Judge, Cin' Cnminal Courts, Hyderabad.

¶30

The children of Chandramma, who died in a vehicular accident hled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,O0,00O/- rrnder SecLion l63A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'tl-re MV Act')

¶31

The briel facts of the cerse are that on 05.01.2007 at about 9:OO pm, rvhile Chandramma/ deceased was standing by the side of Golden Palace Hotel, one A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP10Z1305 (lor short. 'the bus') proceedings towards Krishnabagh, driven b,r' its driven in rash and negligent manner cl-a-shecl- her. As a resr-r1t, she fell down on the road and the front ,/ /

¶32

)

¶33

NTR.J macma_l l2i_201 I

¶34

left tyre of the bus ran over her and caused her death on the spot.

¶35

The Tribuna,l after considering the materials though arrived at compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- (Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) as per the structure formula under Schedule II of the MV Act, restricted the award to Rs.3,00,000/ - to the extent of the claimed amount in the petltlon.

¶36

Aggrieved thereby, the appellants/petitioners in this appeal contended that though the petitioners are entitled for just and proper compensation and the Tribunal arrived at the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-, erroneously restricted the a',vard pointing to the amount sought in the petition. Further, pleaded for considering the dependants, the personal expenditure should have considered at % of the income and prayed for grant ol amounts under conventional heads as per the dictum of National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Pranay Sethi & othersl. Thr-rs, solicited for reassessment of the claim amount to award just com pensatlon.

¶37

'^{2017ACJ27oo(sc)}

¶38

NTR.J ., macma I123 201I

¶39

(

¶40

On the other hzrnd, the learned counsel for the respondent/A. P.S.R.T.C contested that the claim petition is frled under Section 1634. of the MV Act, therefore, the compensation has to be assessed under the Schedule - II of the MV Act and the Tribunal had rightly considered the same. However, fairly submitted that restricting t he compensation at Rs.3,00,000/may be considered as per the settled propositions.

¶41

Therefore, the point that arises for determination is:

¶42

Whether the petitioners are entitled for enharcement of compensation as prayed for?

¶43

The clainr under Scction 1634. ol the MV Act is based on the principle of no fault liabilit-r'; s'here the burden of proving negligence is undone to avoid dela_r' in getting due and fair compensation.

¶44

In Deepal Girishbhai Soni And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.2, the Honble Apex Court in Para 51 held as follows:

¶45

"The scheme enuisagletl under Section 163-A, in our optnion, leaues no nLanner oJ' doubt that bg reason thereof the ights

¶46

2 zoo+ 1sy scc ts.;

¶47

NTR.J macma ll2J 20ll

¶48

¶49

and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned proubions is not to be oltered or uaied in any other proceedings. It does not contain ang prouision prouiding for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 740. In term,s of the said prouision, a distinct and specifted class of citizens, namelg, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,OO0/- or Iess is couered thereunder whereas Sectfons 140 and 166 cater to all sections of societg."

¶50

Thus, as the claim under Section 163A of the MV Act the compensation shall be assessed as per the structured formula of the II Schedule.

¶51

On the aspect of assessment, the appellants/petitioners canvassed that, noting the number of dependalts 1/4th of the income shall be deducted to,vards personal expenditure as per the directives of the Honble Apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr3 and to award amounts under conventional heads as prescribed in the dictum of National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Pranay Sethi & others (supra). This plea is lound not justified as the cause in these authorities was pertaining to the fault liability i.e., the claim under Section 166 of the MV Act. This aspect IS explicitly observed in these irrdornentq Therefnre the nrnnortinn of dedr-rction for the /'

¶52

r zoog 1r,1 scc r -r t

¶53

NTR.J macma I l2.l 201 I

¶54

¶55

personal expenditure and the conventiona-l heads settled to determine the compensation under the fault liability cannot be imported in determining the compensation under Section 163 A of the MV Act.

¶56

The appellant/ petitioners has raised no dispute as to the annual notional income of the deceased at Rs.36,O00/- fixed by the Tribunal. As per the structured formula prescriptions, I l3,a of the income has to be deducted to.,ards personal expenditure and the remaining sum, if multipiied with the multiplier applicable to the age of thc deceased i. e I 5, it would come to Rs.3,6O,OOO/-. In addition, the petitioners are also entitled to Rs.2,O0O/- tor.r,ards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- on loss of estate.

¶57

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation

¶58

as here under:

¶59

S.No.	Nature	AmountinRs.
1.	Towardsloss ofdqpendencr'	3,60 000
2	Towardsfuneralexpenses	2,000
3	Tou,ards loss of estate	2,500
	Total	3,64,5OO

¶60

NT&J macma ll2l 20ll

¶61

¶62

L4. The Courts are endorved rvith statutory duty under Section 168 of the MV Act to award just compensation and the Honble Apex Court in Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Orsa, held that the Courts have the obligation to award the just compensation even if it is beyond the claimed amount in the petition. Thus, awarding the above arrived compensation to the petitioners is found appropriate.

¶63

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed ald the impugned award is modified as folloq,s:-

¶64

a) The appellants/ petitioners are awarded Rs.3,64,500/with 7 .So/n interest per annum from the date of the petition tiil the date of realization of the amount.

¶65

b) The 1., and 2nd respondents are liable to pay the compensation and the_.'' are directed to deposit the awarded amount ',r'ith interest within one month from the date of receipt of cop-v of the order;

¶66

c) On deposit ol enhanced amount with interest the appellants/ petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire amounts as per the apportionment in the award.

¶67

o (zoo3) 2 scc 274

¶68

¶69

NTR.J macma_lt2J_20t i

¶70

1 l

¶71

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, it any, stands

¶72

closed.

¶73