Partly allowed

Bujji, Nalgonda Dist and Others v. the Tsrtc, Hyderabad and Others

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023MACMA/2586/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed part of the Motor Accidents Claims Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the deceased's heirs to increase compensation from Rs. 13,72,500 to Rs. 17,36,400 by enhancing income assumptions and updating consortium amounts, while dismissing the bus operator's appeal without costs.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 13,72,500 to Rs. 17,36,400 with interest at 7.5% p.a. Respondents directed to deposit the amount within two months.

Bujji, Nalgonda Dist and Others Vs the Tsrtc… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

I^ss04 ]

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND T,VENTY THREE

¶4

THE HoNouRABLE sRr rusf8ettnrti[TavARApu RAJE.HWAR RAo

¶5

M.A.C.M. A.N O: 2586 OF 2015 AND M.A.C.M.A.NO:5 7 0F 2016

¶6

MACM ANO .2586 oF 2015:

¶7

Appear under section 173 0f Motor Vehicres Act against the order and decree in MVoP No.2168 of 20 r 3 dated 23ro6t2o1s on the fire of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar -cum- XrV Additionar chief Judge (Fast rrack Court), City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Pr,'r',^{Wo late D.Kishan,.Age:28} years, occ: Househotd 2. 3. sa Mamatha, D/o ngeetha, D/o tate tate D.Ki;ha; o. r<istri n, ns",'10 Xie: a'v"#ii,1?,tLvt;ri ",il"iitl o unt"rt 4. Dharavath Ramutu, S/o phoot Siigr,, dS",6Z-y;[, occ: Nil 5. Dharavath Manee, S/o Ramutu, n6ei +dysarr]!i._:'*,,, 6. Dharavath Ramesil. sto. namuiu,il",i'r"ilriiti", ruirr,

¶10

fl :,ffi #B,li#i'2- 1 5 t c, kuuJritt L"n",i,i,' ri;h:i ;;,, (V), rhurkapa ily ( M ),

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

, il,Xh1i#l[,,lrt|Ir[:j:,t Manasins Director, Bus Bhavan, Rrc X Roads,

¶14

The Depot Mariager, TSRTC, picket Depot, picket, Secunderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

For the Appellants : SRI T.VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate

¶17

For the Respondents : SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, Advocate

¶18

MACMA NO .57 0F 2016:

¶19

Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicres Act against the order and decree in MVoP No.2'r68 of 2o'r3 dated 23ro6r2o1s on the fire of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar -cum- XrV Additionar chief Judge (Fast rrack Court), City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶20

Between:

¶21

'1 . The APSRTC, rep.by its Vice Chairman, and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad.

¶22

The Depot lVanaqer, APSRTC, Prcket Depot, Picket, Secunderabad. .....Appellants/ Respondents

¶23

And

¶24

Bujji, W/o late D.Kishan, Age. 26 years, occ: Housewife R/o.H.No.2-1 5/C, Kevulathanda, lvlerdhapuram Village, Thurkapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶25

[\4amatha, D/o late D.Kishan Age; 8 years, occ: Student, Minor, rep. by her mother and natural guardian Respondent No.1, Fl/o.H.No.2-1 5/C, Kevulathanda, lVlerdhapuram Village, Thurkapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶26

Sangeetha, D/o late D.Kishan, Age: 6 years, occ: Student, [\ilinor, rep. by her mother and natural guardian Respondent No.'1 Fl/o.H.No.2-1 5/C, Kevulathanda, Madhapuram Village, Thurkapally Mandal, Nalgonda Diskict.

¶27

Dharavath Ramulu, S/o Phool Singh, Age: 55 years, occ: Nil, R/o.H.No. 2-151C, Kevulathanda, N4adhapuram Village, Thurkapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶28

Dharavath Manee,, S/o Ramulu, Age: 47 years, occ: Housewife, R/o-H.No.215/C, Kevulathanda, Madhapuram Village, Thurkapally IVlandal, Nalgonda District.

¶29

Dharavath Ramesh, S/o. Ramulu, Age21 years, occ: Nil, R/o H.No.2-1SlC, Kevulathanda, Ma dhapuram (v) rhurkapally (M), rJt$irroue 8iJB"Jlff.? ns

¶30

For the Appellants : SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, Advocate

¶31

For the Respondents : SRI T.VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate

¶32

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶33

¶34

¶35

RRN,] LOinnton lL,dgmenI rn MACMA No.2586 of 2015 ano MACMA No.57 2016

¶36

,l i

¶37

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶38

M.A.C.M.A No. 2586 0F 2015

¶39

AND

¶40

M.A.C.M.A.No.57 0F 2016

¶41

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶42

Both these Motor Accidcnts Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being disposed of by ',vay of this common judgment as both these appeals are directed against the aurard dated 23.06.2015 in M.V.O.P No.2168 of 2013 on the file of the Moror Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge (F.ast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal).

¶43

In M.A.C.M.A No.25B6 of 20tS rhe

¶44

Appellants/claimants had challenged Lhe award dt.23. 06.2016 in M.V.O.P No.2168 of 2013 with regard to the quantum of compensation and prayed to enhance the same. In M.A.C.M.A No.57 of 2016, the Respondents had challenged the award dt.23.06.2015 in M.V.O.p No.2t6U ol 20i3 by contending that the Tribunai failed to consider the negligence leading to the accident and prayed to the set aside the same.

ltI

t: l I I i

'i lqN.l '.

Ccrnnlon lirCqmanl^rn [,,]AC^4A No.2585^ol2015 and I'IACMA^No:,/2016

¶49

F'or t re sakc o[^{(]oilvenience,} the facts^{in M.A C.M A} No.25B6 ol 20 i:;^{are discussedhereunde r and the parties are} hereinafter refert'ed^{to as thev are arrayedbefore the Tribunal'}

¶50

Petiritners, ri'ho^{al-e the q'ife, children, parents and} brother of^{otte D. I(ishan. filed aclaim petition claimrng} compensation^{o1' Rs,20,OO,0O0/-on account of the death of D'} Kishan^{(hereinalter referredto as "deceased") in a motor vehrcle} accidenl that^{occurrcd on 21 1 1 .2012.}

¶51

4.1 Brief facts of thr:^{case are that on 27'll'2OI2, t]ne} deceased^{uras traveliingin ar-r Auto bearing No. AP24-TA-4873} from^{'Ihurkapallvto'\ ards Bommalaramararn and at about 7 15} p.rn., when it reached^{Cheekatimamidi Vi11age, one RTC bus} bearing No.^{AP I 1 Z- 501 O r.r'as driven ina rash and negligent} manner and dashed^{the said Auto. As a result, the deceased} grievous injuries and^{died on the spot. On information,the} Bommalaramaram,^{Police have registered a case in CrimeNo 98} of 2Ol2 under^{Slectron304 A against the drrver of the said bus'} It is further^{stal ed that the deceasedwas aged 28 years and he} was earning Rs.12,000/-^{per month as an Auto driver'Hence,} the claim pel ition.

,/ 1,.'.

R RI,]

Commqn 1y6,n1.r1 ,. MaCMA No.2586 of 2015 and |"4ACMA No.57 2016

¶57

5 Before the Tribunal, respondents No. I and 2 f ed their common counter denying the allegations of the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶58

6 On behalf of the petitioners, pWs I and 2 ,,vere cxamined and got marked Exs.Al to A5. No oral evidence or documen tary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents

¶59

On appreciating the material available on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.13,72,500 /- to Lhe petitioners with interest @^{7.5"/o p.a. from the} date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals filed by both parties as stated above.

¶60

B. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was an Auto driver and he was earning Rs.l2,0O0/_ per month, but the Tribunal erroneously considered the income of the deceased as Rs.S,OOO/-. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the income at Rs.4,5OO/- per month to a labourer and Rs.6,OOO/- per month to a fruit vendor in the absence of income proof. He also submitted that the Tribunal not granted the amounts under. the conventionar heads as per law. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

..'''.1 .:

1?:.t,^{j </sup>}

I,c^rrrron ludgra rt lr MALllv'A i\o.2586 ci r015 a n.l LlA(-M A No.571016

¶66

g. On tl-ie other hand Learned^{counsel forthe}

¶67

respondents subrnittecl that^{tire Trlbunaierred in holdingthat} the accident ocr:urrecl^{ch-tc ro rash and neghgent drivingof} APSRTC Bus beirring^{No.AP 1 lZ 5OlO withoutthere being any} acceptable evidetrce on^{recorcl.He further submittedthat the} accident was du,-- to^{rash and r-regligentdrivingof the deceased} auto driver and^{tl-rerer'r'as contributory negligencefor causingthe} accident. He further^{submittedthat the Tribunalerred in taking} the income of thc^{deceaseclar Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs 3,000/} per month, ri.ilhor-tt an-v^{documentaryproof.He further} submitted that the Tribunal^{erred in awarding compensation of} Rs.1,O0,OOO/^{t r r'"r,'arcls loss of care and guidance for minor} children of the^{deceascd cven though the compensation was} granted un<ler the head of^{ioss of dependency'Accordingly'} prayed to dismis;s thc^{appeal liled by the petitioners, ald allow} their appeal.

¶68

10 Hearrl both sides.^{Perused the record.}

¶69

The ;nain contention of^{the learnedcounselfor the} respondents is that the^{accldent was due to rash and negligent} driving of the d':ceascd auto driver and there was contributory negligence for czrusing the accident. A perusal of the counter in

¶70

¶71

¶72

RAN,] Lonrmon ludgn-ant rn MACMA No.2586 of 2015 and MACMA No.5/ 2016

¶73

-,:.=e-

¶74

the impugnecl order goes to show nothing is pleaded rvith regard to the negligence on the part of the deceased auto driver. Moreover, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on the ir behalf to prove their contention. As such, the Tribunal while deciding issue No. r whether the preaded accident had occurred resulted in the death of the deceased D. Kishan due [o rash and negligent driving of ApSRTC Bus bearing No.Ap 112 50 10, elaborately discussed the issue and rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of ApSRTC Bus bearing No.Ap-l lz_Sorc. Hence, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for respondents and the same is disregarded.

¶75

Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, learned counsel lor the petitioners vehemen y argued that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month being the driver of an Auto, but it considered only Rs.5,OO O / _ per month. As rightly contended b_y the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/_ per month stating that there was no documentar5r proof that he was an auto driver. However, a perusal of the order of the Tribunal while deciding

¶76

1.. \ PRN ]

¶77

Comnron ludg xantⁱⁿ NIACi,lA \o.2585 oi 2C 15 and l,4ACMA No 57 7016

¶78

issue No.2 at p:11'a No. 13 rLt I rc^7th line from the bottom of^said para observed that "....There is no euidence on behalf of the respondents 7 <tnd 2 to e stablish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driuinq of the auto^{bu the} deceased.,,". This itself^{sltorvs that the deceased was an auto} driver. Hence, t^-re Tribunal^{u ronglycame to the conclusion that} the deceased w.ls not^{an itulo drrver. As such, this Court is} inclined to euhzLnce^{thc n-rorr tfrlf income of the deceasedfrom} Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/

¶79

The order of tlti: Tribunal^goes to^{show that it} considered the age of Lhe^{deceased as 28 years as per} Ex.A2/lnquest r:port^and Er..\3/PME^{report. This Court in the} preceding para fixed the monthly^{income of the deceased at} Rs.7,000/-. To rhis,^{fuLure piospectsof 40% as per the decision} of the Hon'ble Supremc^Cor- rt^{jtr NationalInsu:ro;nceCornpang} Ltd, Vs. Pranag Sethil^{as thc deceased was aged 28 years. The} annual income of the deceased including^{future prospects would} come to Rs.1,17,6O0/ (Rs.7.000/-^{+ 4Ook x 12). The appropriate} multiplier as F,er the decision of Sarla^{Verrna Vs. Delhi} Transport Corporation2 for the age group of 26 to 30 is^tt17".

¶80

1(2017) 16 SCC 680

¶81

'1zoos1e scc tz r.

¶82

¶83

RRN,]

¶84

Co.nmon ludgment n MACMA No 2586 of 2015 and MACMA No.57 2018

¶85

Since tl-rc depe ndants are 6 in number, a deciuction of I /4*. of the income of the deceased to\r,ards personal expenses rvhich the deceased might have spent for himself. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,99,400/- (Rs. 1,17,600/- Minus L/4tt x 17).

¶86

The Tribunal awarded Rs.l,OO,00O/_ to the 1.r petitioner towards loss of consortium, Rs.l,OO,00O/- towards loss of care and guidance for minor children, and Rs.25,000/_ funeral expenses. Since the amounts under conventional heads are being changed from time to time, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Natlonal Insurantce Compang Limited as Pranag Sethi and otherss, and Magma Insurance Compang Ltd.. Vs. Nanu Ram @Chuhru Ram+. petitioner No.1, being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium, petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors are entitled to Rs.40,OOO/- each i.e. Rs.8O,OOO/_ (i.e. Rs.4O,O00/- x 2) towards loss of parental consortium, and petitioners No.4 and 5, being parents of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000 /_ each i.e. Rs.8O,00O/- (i.e. Rs.4O,OOO/- x 2) towards filial consortium.

¶87

'1zott1 t6 scc 680.

¶88

42018 Law Suit (SC) 904

¶89

¶90

Rit N,l Cofi on lLrdgmcnt in MACN1A ito.2586 oi 2015 end MACMA No.5 7 2016

¶91

The petitioners €Lre also entrll,rd to Rs. 16,500/ tos'ards^funeral expenses ald Rs 16,500/ tirri^{ards loss of estate} .^{With regardto} interest, the Trilrunai nghth^{consideredinterestaL7 .5o/o p.a.,} which needs no irtterference.^{ln al'1, the petitioners} /^{appellantsare} entitled to Rs. 17,36.'+i)0/-^{(Rs.14,99,40O1 +44'OOOI-} + 1,60,000/-+33,000/ )

¶92

In the result, the N,i.A.C.M.A.^{No.2586of 2O15is} allowed in part and lht'^{conl tletr salioll amount awardedby the} Tribunal is enh,artced from^{lls. 13,72,5OO1-[o Rs. 17,36,4001-} (Rupees Sevente,3n Lakh, l'hirt-r' six^{thousand and four hundred} only) with interr:st^{(tt)7 .5 ok p a. from the date of petitiontill the} date of rea-lizaticn.^{ResponclcntsNo. 1 and 2 are directed to} deposit the said amount^{r'"'ith costs and interest after deciucting} the amount, if aLny,^{alread.l' cieposited,rvithin two months from} the date of receipt of^a copl^{ol thrs judgment.On such deposit,} the petitioners are permltted^{to rvithdrawthe same in accordance} with the mannel and^{proport;on as determined by the Tribunal'} There sha1l be no order^as to^costs.

¶93

M.A.C.M.A. No.57 of 2O16

¶94

Since the l,,I.A.C l\4.A. Nos.2586 of 2Ol5 is allowed in part, the M.A.C.M.A. No..57 of 2016 filed by the APSRTC raising

¶95

¶96

R R N,-i

¶97

Com mon Judgment rn MACMA No 2586 of 2015 and MACMA No.57 201.6

¶98

certain ground againsr the order in M.V.O.p.N o.2168 of .2013,

¶99

but in vier.l, of present scenario of change of law, their appeal cannot be considered and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶100

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶101

¶102

¶103

Sd/-P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR dD

¶104

//TRUE COPYII

¶105

SECTION OFFICER

¶106

The chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- Xlv Additional chief

¶107

^^{{udg9-9'lm--CityCivit Court, at Hyderabad. (with records)} 2. One CC to Sri T.Vishwarupa Cnary, AOvocaie [OpUC]

¶108

One CC to Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate tOpLjCl

¶109

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:16i06/2023

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.2586 of 2015 AND 57 OF 2016

¶119

t$t _ i r/r fF
(
t ,
(; :
Joo 2 B i,)l ?m L],
+y
-\ ,/,1
//
I
Oi -;pt,\C\ -.y'

¶120

PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.2ss6 0F 2ol 5 AND DISMISSING T HE MAcMA NO.57 0F 2016 W THOUT COSTS.

¶121

'o\n^\a,

¶122

I t i \ i i , j

¶123

IN THE HIGH COURTfO.R_THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{[ 3304} I AT HYDERABAD

¶124

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶125

rHE HoNo,RABLE sRr r*f,5rti,ti[ntovARApu RAJEsHWAR RAo

¶126

Between:

¶127

M.A.C.M.A.NO:5 7 0F 2016

¶128

l The APSRTC, reo.bv its Vice.chairman, and rtrranaoing Director, Bus Bhavan, ^^{STCJ Roads, Mi.rsriirabad, Hft;;b;} z rne uepot Manager, ApsRTC, picket Depot, picket, secunderabad.

¶129

.....ADpellants/ Respondents

¶130

¶131

' P:lil,yi3"iX:^B["^1gl^{Ase:. 26 years,occ: H.ousewire R/o.H.No.2_15/c,} ,ys{ffiiti"#,x.,qEll[th"li!?j,,gTl1%,,1{.%?ii,",i,,yifl#?"dJ.[fi ; -trqi,ffi

¶132

' [+:if ** r,,-','# i#tril*trffi4i 'liflfifl #?rffi il,8#'nv#,*d{,,,ffi^,'i;ffi l,}fi,lf trjf,fu

¶133

'i*.s:',i:?J[iilsf District. .i'"rT8[',it#"rf,1n"l,,f#i:ol,?r,.,fi x,Iil,lR j#lal-

¶134

Dharavath Ramesh, S/o. Ram.uhl Age: 21 years, occ: Nil, Ryo H.No.2_1SlC, Kevurathanda, uaarrapuram iV), id;;dpriri rrrrllsns"###+;,ffi

¶135

¶136

Appear under section 173 0f Motor Vehicres Act against the order and decree in MVOp No.2168 0f 2013 dated 23t06/2015 0n the fire of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar --cum- XrV Additionar chief Judge (Fast rrack Court), City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶137

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear, the Judgment and decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri rhooms srinivas, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri T.Vishwarupa Chary, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶138

This Cou( doth Order a nd decree as follows

¶139

That the MACIVII\ be and hereby is dismissed.

¶140

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶141

Sd/.P. PAD[/ANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i/rRUE coPY// GD SECTlON OFFICER

¶142

¶143

'1 . The chairman, I\rotor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- XIV Additional chief Judge -cum- City,Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

¶144

Two CD Copies

Kj.

i t E F,t t

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/06/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.57 of 2016

DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS, @44 H6

¶155

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶156

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶157

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶158

PRESENT

¶159

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶160

Between:

¶161

M.A.C,M.A. NO:2586 OF 2015

¶162

i Fr,r,,^{W/o late D.Kishan, Age:28 years, occ:} Househotd 2. Mamatha, D/o late D.Kishan Age:'t0 years, occ: Student 3 Sangeetha, D/o late D.Kishan,age: a'yeirs, occ:Gtudent

¶163

Dharavath Ramulu, S/o phool Siigh, Age: SZ v""o, occ: Nill 5 Dharavath Manee, S/o Ramulu, ede: +d vearsl oic:'rrflf f 6. Dharavath Ramesh, S/o Ramuiu,"Age: Zi-yeirs-,-;c: Nitt,

¶164

All are R/o H.No.2-15lC, Kevutathinda, t(lraf,ipur", iV), Thurkapaily (tr/), Nalgonda District.

¶165

...APPELLANTS

¶166

AND

¶167

The TSRTC. reo.bv its Joint Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Mushirabad. HvdeiaOaa.

¶168

The Depot Manager, TSRTC, picket Depot, picket, Secunderabad.

¶169

...RESPONDENTS

¶170

Appeal under section i73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in MVoP No.2168 of 2013 dated2310612015 on the fire of thecourtof the chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar -cum- Xrv Additionar chief Judge (Fast rrack Court), City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶171

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri r.Vishwarupa chary, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Thoom Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶172

This Court doth Orde-r and decree as follows :

¶173

'1. That the ITIACMA be and hereby is parfly allowed.

¶174

That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunar is enhanced from Rs.13,72,500/- to Rs.17,36,400/- (Rupees seventeen rakhs thirty six thousand and four hundred only) with interest @ 7.syo p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶175

3' That the Respondents 1 and 2 be and hereby directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after deducting lhe amount, if any, already deposited, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶176

on such deposrt, that the petrtroners be and hereby permitted to withdraw the same in accordarrce with the manner and proportion as determined by the Tribunal.

¶177