Allowed

Ponnam Laxmi and Anr. v. Ap State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC4 Oct 2023MACMA/1201/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an award of Rs. 5,65,000 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a motor accident claim. Enhancing compensation to Rs. 12,39,000 based on the deceased's diploma qualifications and future prospects.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 12,39,000 with consortium; original order modified accordingly.

Ponnam Laxmi and Anr. Vs Ap State Road Transport… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶7

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1201^{OF 2017}

¶8

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against^{the Order-and} decree in'M.V.O.P No.1049 of 2014 dated 15.O6.2016 on^{thefileof the Courtofthe} Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll^{AdditionalDistrict Judge' at} Warangal.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Ponnam Laxmi Wo.Thirupathi @ Thirupathi Goud,^{R/o. Hanamthupalli'} H/o.Chandaram Village, Luxettipet Mandal, Adilabad^{District. Presently R/o.} Hunter Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District.

¶11

Thirupathi @ Thirupathi Goud, S/o.Lasma Goud Occ^toddyTapper R/o.Hanamthupalli, H/o.Chandaram Villae, Luxettipet^{Mandal, Adilabad} District. Presently R/o.Hunter Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal^{City and District}

¶12

...Appellants/Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,^{rep by its ManagingDirector} O/o. Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent

¶17

: Sri SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA

¶18

: STiTHOOM SRINIVAS^(Sc FOR APSRTC)

¶19

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶20

¶21

/,/

¶22

]'HB IION'BLE SITI JUSTICB P.SAM KOSHY

¶23

AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICIi LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.No.l20t of 2Ot7

¶25

JUDGMIiN'I':(pet L{on'bic Sri Jtrstice P.SAM KOSI{Y)

¶26

The present is an appeal filed by the claimants assailing the award dated 15.06.2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l I Additionat District Judge, Warangal, in M.V.O.P.No. 1049 o{ 2014.

¶27

Vide the impugncd award, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5.65.000/- w.ith simptc inrcresr @75% per annum.

¶28

The present is an appeal tiled by the claimants who are the parents of the deccascd i.e., Porrnarn Sai K iran, who met with an accidental death on 26.48.2014.^'l'he accident arose when the bus in which the deceased was traveling and the bus was belonging to Andhra pradesh Road Transport Corporation. bearing rcgistration No.Ap 36 zolg3. Because of the rash and negligcnt driving ol-the driver, the bus skidded from the road and fell into ditch. In the course of the accident, the deceased suffered grievous iniuries, to which he irnmediatery succumbed. The matter was repolled to the Ja,gaon Police Sration, where crime No.242 of 2014 was

¶29

registered. Thereafter,^{a chargesheetagainst the driver of the offending} vehicle was filed^{for the offence punishable underSection 304 of lndian} Penal Code.^{The claimants,thereafter raiseda clairn under Section166} (1)(c) of the Motor^{Vehicle Act, beforethe concernedTribunal' Alter} the Tribunal^{tookthe notionalincome of the} completing^the Pleadings, deceased as^Rs.5,000/- while quantifoing^{the compcnsationof} Rs.5,65,000/-^{with interest} @⁷ '5%'^{It is this award' which is under} challenge^{in the} Present^aPPeal'

¶30

The contention^{of the leamed coturselfor the appellant is that the} leamed Tribunal^{has erred in as much as taking notional incomeat a} much lower^{side and compensationtherefore'needs to be enhanced} suitably, accepting^{notional income to be higher than what has been} quantified by the^{Tribunal. Likewise,it was also the contention of the} learned counsel^{for the appetlantthat the Tribunalhas not awarded any} amount towards^{consortiunand generaldamages' apart from the funeral} and transport^{charges which has been awarded' In addition'the Tribunal} has also not^{taken into account the futureprospects'}

¶31

Per contra,^{the learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation} opposing the^{appeal submitsthat a plain readingof the ar'r'and passed by} the Tribunal^{would show that the Tribunalhas taken into cor.rsideration}

¶32

¶33

all the factual aspects of the case, including the fact that the deceased was not having any sort of employment and there was not proof of income of the deceased produced before the court and in the given circumstances, the quantification of the award by the Tribunal does not warrant any int€rference.

¶34

Flaving heald the contenrion putforth on either of the parites and some of the admitted factual matrix of the case is that the accident took place on 26.08.2014, the deceased having expired in the said accident and he was aged about 19 years and that the bus belongs to the respondent corpolation.

¶35

It is also an admitted position that the claimants in the present case have bccn ablc to prove thal thc deceased was having certificate of diploma in education, which would had enabled him to get a teaching job. What is required to be appreciated is the date of accident which is August 2014, even il we go b_r, the minimum wages that is fixed for un-skilled class IV employee by the S rate Govemment, particularly in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, we are of the considered opinion that the notional income which the deceased would have eamed or the minimum u.ages that would have been prevalent for an un-skilled or skilled person would have been around Rs.250/- per day that would make

¶36

¶37

I I I I ,

¶38

the monthly income of the deceased at I{s.7,500i-. We accordingly, fix the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.7,500/- for the purpose of quantification of the compensation

¶39

The fact that the deceased was having a diploma certificate in the teaching line, he would have got a respectable employment arrd atleast he would have been able to earn a respectable income lonn the said certihcate course that he had with him and there would had been definitely a future progress also made with the said qualification. In the process, we are also of the considered opinion that the l'ribunal should have accepted 40% monthly income of the deceased towards future prospectS which would come to Rs.3,000/- per month, which added to the monthly income of the deceased would bring the^{income at Rs.10,500/-.} Of which, 50% is deducted towards^{personal expenses,since the} deceased was a bachelor, the monthly^income of^{the deceased would} come to Rs.5,250/-, multiplied by 12 months^{of the year,which would} come to Rs.63,000/-, which if multiptied by applying^{the multiplier as} has been adopted by the Tribunal i.e., 18 that^{would have broughtthe} compensation to Rs. I 1,34,000/-.

¶40

In addition to this, the claimants being^{the parents} of^{the deceased,} in the light of the decision of the^{Hon'bleSupreme Courtin the Case of}

¶41

¶42

Sarla Verma Vs, Dclhi Transport Corporationl, which has been further followed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in National Insurance Corporation Vs. Pranay Sethi2, the two claimants should have also got an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium that would come to Rs.80,000/-. In addition, the award passed by the Tribunat towards funeral and transportation charges of Rs.25,000/- does not warrants any interference.

¶43

Thus, rhe total compensation now comes to R.s.12,39,000/_ instead of Rs.5,65,000/- as has been awarded by the Tribunal. The impugned award thus stands modified to the aforesaid extent and the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal also remain intact. The appeal thus stands allowed.

¶44

1l Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶45

closed.

¶46

SD/- P. GOWRI SHAN R \ At3- 2$01 5<a^{tl9</sup> ASSISTANT REGIST R}

¶47

r- Or1* Ae^{q) eioD (s9)} //TRUE COPY//

¶48

SECTION OFFICER

¶49

To, 'l . The Chaimian Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional District Judge, at Warangal.(With Records)

¶50

One CC to SRl. SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI.THOOM SRINIVAS^(SC FOR APSRTC) Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Two CD Copies SP

r.,, li

-!1l

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411012023

1 e SrA l^6.
t
q $(
cJ
C, 0 6 illrB 202f
az
{,'

¶60

JUDGMENT

¶61

MACMA.N o.1201^{ot 2017}

ALLOWING^{THE MACMA}

6^ud( Y{-.

^,\rr

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶66

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF^OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^P.SAMKOSHY AND

¶69

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶70

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS^{CELLANEOUSAPPEALNO:120'lOF 20'17}

¶71

Between:

¶72

1 Ponnam Laxmi Wo.Thirupathi @^{ThirupathiGoud, R/o. Hanamthupalli,} H/o.Chandaram Village, Luxettipet^{Mandal, Adilabad District. PresentlyR/o'} Hunter Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal^{City and District.}

¶73

2 Thirupathi @ Thirupathi Goud,^{S/o.Lasma Goud Occ toddy Tapper} R/o.Hanamthupalli, H/o.Chandaram^{Villae, LuxettipetMandal, Adilabad} District. Presently R/o.Hunter Road,^{Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District'}

¶74

...APPellants/Petitioners

¶75

AND

¶76

AP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT^{CORPORATION,rep by its Managing Director} . O/o. Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶77

...Respondents

¶78

Appeal filed Under Section^'173 of^{Motor VehiclesAct against the^Order-and} ' decreeii'M.V.O.pNo.1049 of^{2O14 dated15.06.2016onttrefileof theCourtofthe} chairman Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal-cum- {l Additional District Judge,at} Warangal.

¶79

ORDER: This appeal comirg on^{for hearing and upon perusingthe grounds} .of appeal, the Awaid and Decree^{of the Lower Court and the material papers in the} iase anO upon hearing the^{arguments of Sri V. SRINIVAS RAO, Advocate for the} Appellant and of SRl. THOOM SRINIVAS,^{Advocatefor the RespoMent}

¶80

This Court doth order and Decree^{as follows}

¶81