Partly allowed

A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another v. M.Vijaya Laxmi and 2 Others

Telangana HC16 Nov 2023MACMA/2575/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation in motor accident claims arising from a fatal bus accident. The court assessed the deceased's income at Rs. 6,500/month, calculated dependency loss, and awarded additional sums for loss of consortium to the widower and minor children, raising the total to Rs. 13,14,800/.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 6,60,000 to Rs. 13,14,800 including loss of dependency, conventional heads, and consortium damages.

A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYOERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF^NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE^SUDHA

¶6

M.AC.M.A NOs: 2575 AND^{29460F 20',t2}

¶7

Aooeals filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles^{Act againstthe Order and} decree i;r'M.V.O.P.No. 526 of^{201 1} dated^{23.04.2012 on the file of the Court of the} Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -^cum -^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court'} Hyderabad.

¶8

M.A.C.M .ANo. 2575 ot 2012

¶9

Between:

¶10

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport^{Corporation Limited,Rep. by its Vice} Chairman and M.D., Bus Bhavan,^{RTC Corss roads., Musheerabad,} Hyderabad

¶11

The Depot Manager APSRTC, Guntur^{-1, Depot, Guntur,(owner of the RTC} Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 40791

¶12

...APPELLANT/Respondent No.¹ &²

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . M.Vijaya Laxmi, Wo. Mattaiah,^{Age:27 years, Occ: HouseholdH.no.1 1-3-} 56/1 6 Parsigutta, Hyderabad

¶15

V.Swathi D/o. Mattaiah, Age 12^{years, Occ: StudentH.no.1 1-3-56/16} Parsigutta, Hyderabad, being minor^{Rep.by their mother RR t herein}

¶16

V.Srihari S/o. Maftaiah, Age: 10^{years, Occ: Student H-no.11 -3-56/1 6} Parsigutta, Hyderabad, being minor^Rep. by theirrnother^{RR t herein} ...RESPONOENTS/Petitioners

¶17

M.A.C.M.ANo. 2946 ot 2O12

¶18

Between:

¶19

M.Viiaya Laxmi, Wo.Mattaiah, Age: 27^yearc, Occ^{Household R/o.H.No.11-3-} 56/1 6, Parsigutta, Hyderabad.

¶20

V.Swathi, D/o.Mattaiah, Age: 12^years, Occ^{StudentR/o.H.No.11-3-56/16,} Parsigutta, Hyderabad.

¶21

V.Srihari, S/o.Mattaiah, Age: 10^{years, Occ Student} [he^{Applicant 2 and3} being minors rep by the-ir mother cum^{guardian Applicatnt No.1 hereinl} R/o.H.No.11-3-56/16, Parsigutta, Hyderabad.

¶22

...APPELLANTS

¶23

AND

¶24

The AP State Road Transport Corporation,^{rep. by its VC andMD, O/o.Bus} Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad.

¶25

The Depot Manager, AP State Road^{Transport Corporation,O/o.Guntur-'1} Depot, Guntur. [Owners of the RTC Bus^{Bearing No.AP 28 Z 4079]}

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

Counsel for Appellantsⁱⁿ MACMA.No. 2575 ot²⁰¹² & Respondents^{in MACMANo.} 2946o1 2012 : Sri K. SRINIVASARAO

¶28

Counsel for Respondentsⁱⁿ MACMA.No. 2575 ot^2012& Appellants in MACMA.No. 2946 ot 2012 Sri T. VISWARUPA CHARY

¶29

The Court delivered the^{following:COMMON JUDGMENT}

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶31

M.A.C.M.A.NoS.2575 &,2946 of 2Ol2

¶32

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶33

These appeals are filed against the Order^dated 23.O4.2OL2 in O.P.No.526 of 2Oll passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

¶34

The petition uide O.P.No.526 of 2O11 was frled by the petitioners/claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 1O,0O,O00/for the death of the deceased Mattaiah, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.11.2010. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence .on^record, granted compensation of Rs.6,6O,O0O/- along with interest @ 60/o per annum from the date of petition till^realization' Aggrieved by the said Order, they^{preferredM.A.C.M.A.No.2946} of 2012.

¶35

The Road Trarrsport Corporation^{(RTC)has also filed} M.A.C.M.A.No.2575 of 2OL2 against the sarne^{Order in} O.P.No.526 of 2O 1 1 and disputed^{the quantum of compensation} awarded by the trial Court and^{requested the Court to set aside} the Order of the trial Court.

¶36

¶37

Heard arguments of both^sides and^{perusedthe entire} evidence on record.

¶38

Parties herein are referred as^{petitioners and respondents} as arrayed before the trial^{Court for the sake of convenience.}

¶39

The brief facts of the case are that^{on 23.ll.2OlO, at} about 10.OO p.m. when the^{deceased Mattaiah, was walking} along side the Mazid Road in Gudur^{Village,one APSRTC bus} bearing registration No.AP 28 Z^{4079 came at a high speedin a} rash and negligent manner dashed the^{deceased.As a result,} the deceased Mattaiah fell down and had^{sustained fracture} injuries on the vital^parts of the body^{and diedon the spot. The} police registered a case in Cr.No.217 of 2010.

¶40

As the present appeals are^preferred only^againstthe quantum of compensation granted by the tria-l Court, the^issue regarding rash and negligence of the rider of the^{crime vehicle} need not be gone into.

¶41

The petitioner No. 1 examined herself as P.W.1 and^got examined P.W.2 and marked Exs.Al to A5 on their behalf and no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

¶42

¶43

The learned Counsel for the^petitioners mainly^contended that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/-^per month, the trial Court without assigning any reasons taken his salary^as Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, requested this Court to take his sa-lary as Rs.9,O00/- per month.

¶44

Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and as^per the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Shioakuamr M.^{Vs Managlng} Dlrector, Bengoluru Metropolitan TlansPort Corporatlon, this Court finds that it is^just and reasonable to take the^salary of the deceased as Rs.6,5O0/- per month as on the date^of incident and thus the annual income of the deceased^would comes to Rs.78,0OO/- (Rs.6,5OO/- X 12^: Rs.78,000/-).

¶45

As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble^ApexCourt in^dictum of Sarta Venna Vs. Delhi Transport Corporatlon,t^ifthe deceased was married, I l3ra of his income^has to^{be deducted} as there are 3 dependents towards^{her personalexpenses.Thus,} the annual income of the deceased after^{deducting personal.} expenses comes to Rs.52,000/-^per annum and^{the Hon'ble} Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance^Compang Limtted Vs. Pranag Sethl2, held that the future^{prospects of}

¶46

'^{(2009) 6 scc t2l}

¶47

'?(2017)^{16 scc680}

¶48

¶49

income of the self-employed^{deceased shall also be includedin} determination of the^{compensation. Thus, considering theage} of the deceased,^4Ooh of the^{income has to be added towards} future prospects and thus the^{amount wouldbecome} Rs.72,8OO/-. This sum if multiplied^{with the multiplier} applicable to the age of the^{deceasedi.e.16, it would cometo} Rs. 11,64,800/-. Thus, the appellants/petitioners^{are entitledto} Rs. I 1,64,800/- under the^head 'Loss^{of Dependency'.}

¶50

Besides, petitioner No.l is^{also entitled for compensation} under tonventional heads' as^{prescribed inthe dictum of} Nrrtlonc,l Insurance Compang Limited^{Vs. Pranag Setfti,i.e.,} Rs.15,OO0/- towards loss of Estate and^{Rs.15,O00/-towards} funeral charges.

¶51

I 3. Further, the Honble Supreme Court,^{by reiteratingthe} comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium'^{given inthe} authority of Magma Generol Insurance^{Company Llmlted us.} Nalnu Rrrm Alias Chuhru Ram & others€,^{and in the authorit5r} between United India Insuro,nce Compang^{Limited us.} Satinder Kaur @ Satutinder Kaur and otherd,^{fortified that} the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded^{to the}

¶52

' lzots;^{rr scc ro}

¶53

o (2020) 9 scc 644

children who lose the care and protection of their^parents as 'parental consortium' and to the parents as, 'filial consortium' for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased children. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.40,O0O/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 towards parental consortium and Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium.

¶58

Therefore, petitioner No.l is entitled for the compensation amount in the following terms:

¶59

I	Lossof dependency	Rs.11,64,80O/-
2	Conventionalheads	Rs.3O,O00/-
3	Parental Consortium forchildren	Rs.8O,00o/-
4	SpousalConsortium	Rs.4O,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs.13,14,8OO/-

¶60

In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2946 of 2Ol2 is allowed^and M.A.C.M.A.No.2575 of 2Ol2 is dismissed. The amount^of compensation granted by the trial Court is^{enhanced from} Rs.6,60,000/- to Rs.13,14,800/- (Rupees Thirteen^lakhs Fourteen thousand Eight hundred only) with^{interest at the rate} of 7.5o/o per annum from the^{date of frling the petition till the} date of realization. Though, Respondents^{No.1 and 2 are jointly}

¶61

¶62

and severally liable to pay compensation, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of this Judgment. On such deposit, petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.2,OO,OOO/- each and the l"t petitioner is entitled to the balance amount. The petitioners are also directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stald

¶64

closed

¶65

Sd/- MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSARI //rRuE coPY// ASSISTANT BEGISTRAR v SECTION OFFICER

¶66

To,

¶67

The Chairman,^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal} -^cum -^{Chief Judge' City} Civil Court, Hyderabad.^{(with records, if any)} -^2. one cC to Sri.^{K. SRINIVASARAO, Advocate} IOPU9l ^- 5. One CC to^{Sri.T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶68

Two CD Copies

ASR2/NJB

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611112023

COMMON JUDGMENT⁺ COMMON DECREE

¶76

MACMA.Nos.2575 of 2012 &2946 ot 2012

¶77

. .i,-
;.t,..':<br>l'\a
1, il
Z,l
I1i 2 S tii i-iii O,l
i<br>* Dl: c
I;i,1

¶78

ALLOWING MACMA No. 2946 of 2012 & DISMISSING MACMA No. 2575 ot 2012

¶79

C}'n'u Go q

¶80

¶81

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶82

THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶83

PRESENT

¶84

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶85

M.A.C .M.ANOs: 2575 ANO 2946 OF 2012

¶86

M.AC.M.A.No. 2575 ot 2012

¶87

Between:

¶88

1 . Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport^{Corporation Limited, Rep. by its} Vice Chairman and M.D., Bus Bhavan,^{RTCCorss roads., Musheerabad,} Hyderabad

¶89

The Depot Manager APSRTC, Guntur^{-1, Depot, Guntur, (ownerof the} RTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4079)

¶90

...APPELLANT/Respondent No.¹ &²

¶91

AND

¶92

1 M.VUaya Laxmi, Wo. Mattaiah, Age:27^{years, Occ: Household H.no.11-} 3-56/16 Parsigutta, Hyderabad

¶93

2 V.Swathi D/o. Mattaiah, Age 12^{years,Occ:StudentH.no. 1'1-3-56/16} Parsigutta, Hyderabad, being minor^{Rep. by} their mother RR^{t herein}

¶94

V.Srihari S/o. Mattaiah, Age: 10^years,Occ: Student^{H.no.1 1-3-56/'16} Parsigufta, Hyderabad, being minor Rep.^by their mother^{RR t herein} ...RESPONDENTS/Petitioners

¶95

M.AC.M.A.No. 2946 ot 2012

¶96

Between:

¶97

1 . M.Viiaya Laxmi, Wo.Mattaiah, Age: 27^{years, Occ Household} F/o.H.No. 1 1 -3-56/1 6, Parsigutta, Hyderabad.

¶98

V.Swathi, D/o.Mattaiah, Age:12^years, Occ^{StudentRl/o.H.No.11-3-56/16,} Parsigutta, Hyderabad.

¶99

V.Srihari, S/o.Mattaiah, Age:.10^years, Occ^Student [fhe^{Applicant2 and3} being minors rep by theii mother cum^{guardian Applicatnt No.1 hereinl} F:/o.H.No.11-3-56/16, Parsigutta, Hyderabad.

¶100

...A',ELLANTS

¶101

AND

¶102

1 . The AP State Road Transport Corporation,^rep. by^its VC^{and MD,} O/o.Bus Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad.

¶103

¶104

2 The Depot Manager, AP State Road Transport Corporation, O/o.Guntur-1 Depol, Guntur. [Owners of the RTC Bus Bearing No.AP 28 Z 4079]

¶105

...RESPONDENTS

¶106

Appeals filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 526 of 2011 dated 23.04.2012 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶107

ORDER: These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Cou( and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. SRINIVASARAO, Advocate for the Appellants in MACMA.No. 2575 of 2012 & Respondents in MACMA.No. 2946 of 2012 and of Sri T. VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate for the Respondents in MACMA.No. 2575 of 2O12 & Appellants in MACMA.No. 2946 of 2012.

¶108

This Court doth Judgment and decree as follows:-

¶109

That the MACMA No. 2575 of 2O12 be and hereby is dismissed;

¶110

That the M.A.C.M.A.No.2946 of 2012 be and hereby is allowed;

¶111

That the amount of compensation granted by the trial Court be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.6,60,0001 to Rs.1 3, 14,8OOl- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs Fourteen thousand Eight hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5Yo per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization;

¶112

That the Respondents No.1 and 2 be and hereby are .iointly and severally liable to pay compensation, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of this Judghent;

¶113

That on such deposit, petitioner No.1 be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it;

¶114

That the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 be and hereby are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/each and the 1't petitioner is entitled to the balance amount;

¶115

That the petitioners be and hereby are directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount;

¶116

That save^{as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed} / in all other^respects;and

¶117

That there^{shall be no orderas to costs in these appeals}

¶118

Sd/. MOHD.^{SANAULLAHANSARI} ASSISTANT BRGISTRAR /ffRUE coPY// \r'

\r'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Chairman,^{Motor Accident Claims Tribunal} -^{cum - Chief Judge' City} Civil Court, HYderabad 2. Two^CD CoPies ASR2NJB.S

/f/ /

HIGH COURT

DATED:1611112023

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.Nos.2575 of 2012 &2946 ot2O12

¶128

ALLOWING MACMA No. 2946 of 2012 & DISMISSING MACMA No. 2575 of 2012 @*u q^$

A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another v. M.Vijaya Laxmi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another v. M.Vijaya Laxmi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. H. Jamuna Vs Tudaddy Bhulaxmi and 4 Others

Kasturi Ramaiah Vs Kasthuri Laxma Reddy , Lachi Reddy

P.Karuna and 2 Ors. Vs Md.Sarvar and 4 Ors.

A. Laxman Nayak and Another Vs M/S M.M. Travels and Another

Uppula Anjani Prasad Vs Gourishetti Maruthi Kiran

M.Vijaya Laxmi and 2 Ors. Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation and Anr.