Allowed

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Shammem Begum

Telangana HC2 Aug 2023MACMA/3083/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Motor Vehicles Act appeal filed by the bus transport corporation and allowed the cross-objections by the dependents. The compensation awarded for the death of a stone crusher was enhanced due to errors in assessing the deceased's income and interest rate. The tribunal's low income assessment was corrected based on medical and employment evidence. The final award was in

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased from Rs. 14,50,000/- to Rs. 15,58,900/- with proportionate interest; appeal by transport corporation dismissed.

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE^{SAMBASIVARAONAIDU}

¶6

MACMA NO: 3083 OF 2017 AN D CROSS^{OBJ.No.17 ol 2O1a}

¶7

Appeal filed under section¹⁷³ of^{Motor VehiclesAct aggrieved by the} judgment and decree dated 26.08.2016 passed in M.V.O.P' No.84 of 2015 on the file of the Judge, Family^{Court-cum-VllAdditional DistrictJudgeat} Mahabubnagar

¶8

Between:

¶9

'l . The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by Depot Manager, Narayanpet Bus Depot,^{Bus bearingNo.AP2-82-3064 Narayanpet} Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar^{District. (Now TSRTC)}

¶10

The Andhra Pradesh State Road^{Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional} Manager, Superior Officer, RM Office,^{New Bus StandComplex,} Mahabubnagar.

¶11

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

AND

¶13

Shammem Begum W/o.^{Md. Shafi, Aged 40 years, Occ. Household,} 2. Shabana Begum Dio. Md.^{Shafi, Aged19 years, Unmarried, Occ. Household,} 3. Shinaz Begum D/o. Md. Shafi,^{Aged18. years, Unmarried, Occ. Household,}

¶14

Mohd.Ali Akbar S/o. Md. Shafi,^{Aged'14 years, Occ. Student, Minor}

¶15

Buvamma Wo. Babar Miya, Aged^{60 years, Occ.Nil.}

¶16

Respondents No.3 and 4 under^{guardianshipof natural mother Respondent} No.1

¶17

All are Fl/o. Theeleru^{Village,DhanwadaMandal, MahabubnagarDistrict,} Presently residing at H.No.2-83,^{Bandameedipally, Mahabubnagar}

¶18

...RESPON DENT/CLAIMANT

¶19

¶20

CROSS OBJ.No. 17 ol 2018

¶21

Between:

¶22

'1. Shammem Begum W/o. Late Md. Shafi, Aged 43 years, Occ. Household,

¶23

Shabana Begum D/o. Late Md. Shafi, Aged 22 yea,s, Occ. Household,

¶24

Shinaz Begum D/o. Late Md. Shafi, Aged 21 . years, Occ. Household,

¶25

Mohd.Ali Akbar S/o. Late Md. Shafi, Aged'17 years, Occ. Student, Minor under Guardianship of his mother, Appellant No. 1

¶26

Buvamma W/o. Babar Miya, Aged 63 years, Occ. Nil.

¶27

All are R/o. Theeleru Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Presently residing at H.No.2-83, Bandameedipally, Mahabubnagar

¶28

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS

¶29

AND

¶30

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Presently Telangana State Road Transport Corporation), Rep. by Depot Manager, Narayanpet Bus Depot, Narayanpet Village and [Mandal, fVahabubnagar District. (Bus No. AP28Z.3064

¶31

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation(Presently TSRTC), Rep. by its Regional Manager, Superior Officer, RM Office, New Bus Stand Complex, lvlahabubnagar.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶33

MACMAMP. NO: 5426 OF 2017

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay all further proceedings including execution of the order dated 26.08.20'16 passed in MVOP.No. 84 ol 2015 by the Court of the judge, Family Court cum Vlll Addl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in the interest of justice

¶35

Counsel for the Appellants in MACMA and Respondents in X-Objection:

¶36

SRI. THOOM SRINIVAS (sc FoR rsRrc)

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent in MACMA and Petitioners/Claimants in X-Objection : SRl. BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR

¶38

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶39

¶40

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASTVA RAO NAIDU

¶41

MACMA No.3O83 of 2OL7 AND CROSS OBJ.No. 17 o 2018

¶42

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶43

This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection No.77 of 2Ol8 arose in rriew of the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cumIN VIII Additional District JuCge, Mahabubnagar M.V.O.P.No.B4 of 2015, dated 26.08.2016 whereunder the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.l4,5O,00O/- together with costs and interest @ 9'r/o per annum towards compensation for the death of one Md.Shafi in a load accident.

¶44

As could be seen from the award in the above referred MVOP, the wife, children and mother of said ShaIi (hereinafter be referred to as deceased) filed the said petition seeking compensation of Rs.2O,OO,OOO/- for the death of the deceased in road accident. According to the material averments rrade by the petitioners, it shows that on 30.12.2014 at about 06:30 P.M. deceased and one M.Kishore were proceeding on motor bike towards Atmakur

¶45

'i4C\lA No ii()b3 ct 20lr &X Ot!.N. li Cj1 20li]

¶46

¶47

4:-

¶48

zrnd wficn they reachecl IVRCL company. ttre driver cf ;r bus bearing lto.AP-282-3O64 by driving the bus irr higl-r speed in lash and negligent manner dashed rhe bike lrom the back side, thereby the deceased received severe bleeding injuries. T1're pillion rider also suffered injr-iries on his lace. Though the deceased !\ras shilted to hospital, he succurrrbed to injuries, thereby a complaint was presented to the poiicr:, Chinna Chin thakunta wtrich was registered as Crime No.83 of 2014.

¶49

The petitioners have claimed that the deceased rvas working as a stone crusher on a nrcnthly salary of Rs.15.000/- and sought lor a sum oi tts.20,00,000/to',vards compensation trnder various heacls

¶50

The respondent/RTC opposed the said petition on various grounds and alleged that the ieccident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. He had no valid license to drive the bike. They have disputed the income and age of the deceased ancl sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶51

MACMA No 3083 of20l7 & X.OBJ.No.17 of 2018

¶52

¶53

During enquiry the wife of the deceased has been examined as PW1 and one eye witness of the accident has been examined as PW2. They have marked Exs.Al to A7. The respondent/RTC examined RWI

¶54

The Tribunal having considered oral and documentarSr evidence, allowed the petition in part and granted a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- with costs and interest.

¶55

The respondent/RTC who liled the appeal, disputed the correctness of the award on various grounds and claimed that the Tribunal committed serious irregularity by awarding excess amount as compensation with higher rate of interest and failed to appreciate the averments made by the respondent. The Tribunal failed to consider their claim that the owner ald insurance company from which the policy was obtained for the motor cycle were proper parties to the petition and as they were not added, the petition is liable to be dismissed. They have a_lso claimed that the Tribunal came to wrong conclusions by holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver arld also claimed that the Tribunal applied

¶56

4 UACI1A No 3t133 ol?0t7 & x^()t!.No l7 0t 20ls

¶57

wrong rnultiplierwhilc considering the firiancial loss to the farnily, tlrereby sought for setting aside the at"r/ard.

¶58

B. On the other hand, the claimants who have filed cr-oss objections havc pleadecl that tlrey have placed sulficien I e vidence before the Tribunal to strow that th e deceased was an employee in Undhyal Dharma Stone Cnrshers; on a monthiy salary of Rs.15,000/-. The saleuy certificate vide Ex.A7 'nr,as proved through the evidence of PW2 r.l,h o u,as^.n,orking als Supervisor in the said stone crusher, but the l'ribunal comrnitted an rirror by taking the salary as Rs.6,600/- per month, thereby sought for enh ar-rcement of compensation.

¶59

Heard both parties.

¶60

I 0. Now the point for consideration is:

¶61

1 Whether tlrc Tibunal comrrdtted error and awarded excess amount as contended bg the appellanls/ RTC ?

¶62

Whether the clatm of the petitioners/claimants about the montltlg salary of Rs.1S,0OO/- is right? If so, tuhether the Tibunal committed an errot bg

¶63

MACMA No.3Oa3 of 20 I7 & X.OBJ.No l7 of20ta

considering the income of the deceased. as Rs.6,6OO/-, thereby tLe clatmants are entitled to e nhance d co mp e n s ation?

¶68

POINTS:

¶69

The respondent/RTC filed the appeal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal awarded an exorbitant amount as compensation by granting gyo as interest on the compensation amount, thereby sought for reducing the amount. Whereas the petitioners i.e., the dependants of the deceased have submitted that the Court below failed to accept the evidence of pW2 and Ex.A7 which clinchingly show the Actual income of the deceased. Thereby, they sought for enhanbement of the compensation amount.

¶70

As could be seen from the impugned order, it is very clear that the petitioners have examined the Supervisor of the said stone crursher whether the deceased was working and marked Ex.AZ /salary certificate. However, the Tribunal was of the opinion that Ex.A7 cannot be accepted without examination of the concerned i.e., who issued the

¶71

i\lACnlA No.1083 ot 20lz 4.. X OBJ.No. l7 .t 20 t8

¶72

¶73

salzrrv certificate ancl assessed the incorne of thc cleceased as I1s.6.6007- per iJnltum.

¶74

As per the nraterial available before the Court vide Exs.A2 to A4 the age of the deceaserl rv21s 46 yeeLrs, ,lht: pe titioners/ wife, 3 chiidren aurd aged mottrer \t,ere depending upon l-ris income. l'l.re acciclent occurred during 2014.^'ll-rc Tribunal calcr-rla.ted the i.c.me of the deceasec.l as Rs.6,600/- u,hich is not reasonable income. Even a daily s,age worker could earn Rs.300/_ per da.y and l?s.9,000/per month. The 'l'ribunal cor_rld have accepted the irrcomc of l.he decezrsecl as Rs.9,OOO/-. in view of ttre age of the deceased being 46 year.s, the claimalts are entitled to ar-r addition of 3Ook towards future prospects which is j ust reasonablc. The.cfore, the ,rot-rthly i.corne of tire deceasecl can be assessed as Rs. 1 I,ZOO I . If Vq of the said income i.e., Rs.2.925/- is deducted torvards personal expenses, the income of the deceased would be Rs.g,775 /- per month ;rncl Rs. 1,05.300/- per annum. The actual multiplier is " l 3". Tl-rerefore, the petitioners,/ clajmants are entitled to Rs.13,68,900/- towards the 1oss of earnings.

¶75

$J16 .F

¶76

MACMA.No.30a3 0f20r7 & X.OBJ No.l7 of 2018

¶77

¶78

I I

¶79

The Tribunal has added a sum of Rs.1,O0,0OO/towards loss of consortium and The Tribunal added some more amount towards consortium, marriage expenses of the petitioners 2 and 3 and funeral expenses @ Rs.25,0OO/-. But, the same is not in accordance with the finding of the Honble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case. The petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled to Rs. 15,OOO/- each towards loss of estate, Rs.40,OO0/- each towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Therefore, the petitioners/ claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,58,900/- with costs and interest @ 7.5oh per annum on the amount from the date of petition till the amount is realized. The 1"t petitioner being wife of the mlnor deceased with the responsibility of maintaining children is entitled to receive excess amount that was ordered in the present appea-l.

¶80

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants/RTC is dismissed and the Cross Objection 1S allowed, and compensation amount is increased from Rs.14,50,000/- to Rs. 15,58,900 l- and the l"t respondent/ claimant is entitled

¶81

¶82

Vl(rf,lA N. :lOB3 ol 20 r / S & )i.otr_r.l,o t7 cri20i3

¶83

Lo receive the cnhanced amolrrr+"^. togel-her witir

¶84

proportiollate intcrest

¶85

As a sequel, pendirig hliscellaneous /rpplications, if

¶86

a.nt . strall stand closcd.

¶87

Sd/- C. V. MALLIKARJKUNA VARMA JOINT REGIS //TRUE COPY//

¶88

To,

¶89

SECTION FFICER

¶90

1 The Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar (with records)

¶91

One CC to SRl. THOOM SR|N|VAS (SC FOR TSRTC) tOpUCl

¶92

One CC to SRt. BAJRANG STNGH THAKUR, Advocate tOpUCl

¶93

Two CD Copies

X.Ll

I ,

HIGH COURT

SSRN, J

DATED: 0210812023

COMMON JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.3083 o12017 AND cRoss oBJ. No. 17 0F 2018

¶101

1HE ST4 14:
osr.
6.
ooJ 2 B tlol/ 2i123 L
/
t t);.:...;_

¶102

ALLOWING THE CROSS

¶103

OBJECTION AND DISMISSING

¶104

THE MACMA

¶105

o' \w
-\t

¶106

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶107

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶108

PRESENT

¶109

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{SAMBASIVARAONAIDU}

¶110

MACMA NO: 3083 OF^{2017 AND CROSSOBJ.No.17 ot 2018}

¶111

Between:

¶112

The Andhra Pradesh State Road^{Transport Corporation, Rep. by Depot} Manager, Narayanpet Bus^{Depot,Bus bearingNo.AP28Z-3064 Narayanpet} Villag6 and Maridal, Mahabubnagar^{District. (Now TSRTC)}

¶113

The Andhra Pradesh State Road^{Transport Corporation,Rep. by its Regional} Manager, Superior Officer, RM^{Office, New Bus StandComplex,} Mahabubnagar.

¶114

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶115

AND

¶116

Shammem Begum Wio. Md.^{Shafi, Aged40 years, Occ. Household,}

¶117

Shabana Begum D/o.^{Md.Shafi, Aged19 years, Unmarried, Occ. Household,}

¶118

Shinaz Begum D/o. Md. Shafi,^{Aged'18. years, Unmarried, Occ.Household,}

¶119

Mohd.Ali Akbar S/o. Md. Shafi,^{Aged14 years, Occ. Student, Minor}

¶120

Buvamma Wo. Babar Miya,^{Aged60 years, Occ. Nil.}

¶121

Respondents No.3 and 4 under^{guardianshipof natural mother Respondent} No.1

¶122

All are Fl/o. Theeleru Village,^{DhanwadaMandal, MahabubnagarDistrict,} Presently residing at H.No.2-83,^{Bandameedipally, Mahabubnagar}

¶123

..RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT

¶124

CROSS OBJ.No. 17 of 2018

¶125

Between:

¶126

Shammem Begum Wo. Late^{Md. Shafi,Aged 43 years, Occ'Household,}

¶127

Shabana Begum D/o. Late^{Md.Shafi, Aged 22 yearc, Occ. Household,}

¶128

Shinaz Begum Dio. Late Md.^{Shafi, Aged21. years, Occ. Household,}

¶129

Mohd.Ali Akbar S/o. Late^{Md. Shafi,Aged 17 years, Occ. Student,Minor} under Guardianship of^{his mother, Appellant No.1}

¶130

Buvamma W/o. Babar Miya, Aged 63 years, Occ. Nil.

¶131

All are R/o. Theeleru Village, Dhanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, Presently residing at H.No.2-83, Bandameedipally, Mahabubnagar"

¶132

... PETITION ERS/RESPONDE NTS/CLAIMANTS

¶133

AND

¶134

1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (presenfly Telangana State Road Transport Corporation), Rep. by Depot lvlanager, Narayanpet"Bus Pgqqt. i!ryqvrnpet^{Village and Mandat, MahbbubnagalDistrict. (ElusNo.} AP28Z-3064

¶135

2 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation(presently TSRTC), Bep^{by its Regional Manager, Superior'Officer,RtU} Offiie, New'Bus Stand Complex, Mahabubnagar.

¶136

... RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶137

Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2016 passed in M.V.O.p. No. 84 of 2015 on the file of the Judge, Family court-cum-vll Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar

¶138

ORDER: This appeal and Memorandum cross objections coning on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and X-objections, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. THOOM SRIN|VAS, SC for TSRTC in MACMA and Respondents in X-objections for the Appellants and Sri. BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR, Advocate for the Respondents in MACMA and petitioners/claimants in Cross Objection.

¶139

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows;

¶140

'1 . That the lvlotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellants/RTC be and hereby is dismissed;

¶141

rhat the cross objections filed by the claimants be and hereby is allowed, and the compensation amount is increased from Rs. 14,50,000/_ (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to Rs. i S,58,900/- (Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Eight rhousand Nine Hundred onry) and the 'r't respondent/craimant is entitled to receive the enhanced amount together with propo(ionate interest; and

¶142

ii /

¶143

That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stand confirmed in all other respects.

¶144

Sd/- C. V. MALLIKARJKUNA VAR A JOINT REGIS R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶145

To,

¶146

The Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar

¶147

fwo CD Copies

$\r

HIGH COURT

SSRN, J

DATED: 0210812023

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.No.3083 ot 2017 AND

¶154

cRoss oBJ. No. 17 0F 2018

¶155

ALLOWING THE CROSS

¶156

OBJECTION AND DISMISSING THE MACMA

¶157

..P N{(.

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Shammem Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. Shammem Begum

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

B Sailoo, R.R.Dist and 2 Others Vs P Aruna, R.R.Dist

B Sanjeeva Reddy Vs Tsrtc

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs B.Sanjeeva Reddy and Another

P. Satyanarayana, Vs P.Nagamani and 6 Others

Shameem Begum Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ( Presently Telangana State Road Transport CorP

M/s. Sri Mouli Tiffins, Vs Smt. Lalita Devi Hisariya