Dismissed

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc v. v. Ramulu

Telangana HC2 Aug 2024MACMA/2248/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSRTC appealed a Tribunal award of Rs.4,52,000 for a woman killed when an RTC bus hit her scooter. The High Court dismissed the appeal, recomputed dependency with 40% future prospects and parental consortium, enhancing compensation to Rs.9,03,860 despite no cross-objections.

What did the court decide?

Claimants' compensation enhanced from Rs.4,52,000 to Rs.9,03,860 with 7.5% interest payable by APSRTC within two months; appeal dismissed.

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc Vs v. Ramulu — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[32s3 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

M.A.C.M.A.No: 2248 of 201I

¶7

Appeal filed under Section^'173 of M.V. Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated. 15-02-2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.13S8 of 20.10 on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additionat chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The . Depot trlgl?gqr, APSRTC, Kalwakurthy Depot, Katwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶10

2 The Managing. Director, APSRTC, Administrative Building, Bus Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad. ...AppellanURespondents

¶11

AND

¶12

V. Ramulu, S/o. Ramaiah,

¶13

Shiva, S/o. Ramulu, 3. Shirisha, D/o. Ramulu,

¶14

Shrikanth, Sio. Ramulu,

¶15

...Respondents/Petitioners Counsel for the Appellants: SRI C. SUNIL KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI M. LINGAM

¶16

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYAD ARSINI

¶18

M.A.C.M.A.No.2248 OF 20 19

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XII Additional Chief Judge (Fasr Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) in M.V.O.P.No. 1358 of 2O10, dated I5.O5.2O12, the respondents thcrein/APSRTC preferred the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinalter be referred as they '*,e re arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶22

The crux o[ the case in brief is that the claim petitioners, r,r.ho are thc husband and children of the deceased-wife, fited a claim petition secking compensation of Rs.5,OO,OO0/- together with costs and interest @ l8o/" per annum initially, which was later got amended to Rs.l2,61,OO0/- as per the orders passed by this Court in I.A.No. 1 ol 2023, dated 22.09.2O23, on account of the death of the deceased-wife in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.06.20 10 at about 4.3O PM. As stated by the petitioners, on the fateful day, u'hen the claim pctitioners along with the deceasedu'ife were proceeding to Tummalur from Ibraimpatnarn on the Scooter bearing No.AP-28L-6835 and when they reached Mak

¶23

¶24

Project, at that timc, one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-I0Z-48O6^came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the^{Scooter of the} petitioners. As a result, they fell down on the road and^{the wife of} petitioner No.l died on the spot due to grievous injuries^{and the} petitioner No.1 and his children were shifted to Shaman^Hospital for treatment. Policc o[ Maheshu,aram Police Stat.ion,^{registered a} case in Crime No. I lO of 2O l0 under Section 304A^{IPC againstthe} driver of the RTC Bus l>earing No.AP-^102-4806. It^{is further stated} by the petitioners at the time of accident, the deceased^{was aged} 28 years and uscd to work as a Labour and used^{to earn} Rs.3,300/- per month and due to sudden death of the^deceased, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have lost their mother and hence^{{iied the} claim petition againsl the respondcnt Nos. I & 2,^{wh,o are the} Depot Manager and M:rnaging Director of APSRTC, Hyderabad.

¶25

The respondt:nts I & 2 filed their counter denying^the averments made in the claim petition and contended that there^is no negligence on part of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing NO.APrcZ-4AO6 and that the accident occurred due to rash driving of the rider of the motorcy<:lc and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

¶26

Based on thr: above pleadings, thc learned Tribunal had framed the follorving issues:-

¶27

¶28

Whether ttle^{pteaded accidentLLadoccutred resulting} in d.eath of^{the deceasedJagadomba@Jayamma'} due to the^{rosh and negligent driuing of the motor} uehicle^{(APSRTCBusbeanng registrationNo'AP-LOZ-} aBO6) by tts diuer?

¶29

ore entitled^toanq

¶30

LL. Whether the Petitioners ampensation^{and if so, to u)hat qtanfum and uhot} is the liabilitg^{of the respondents?}

¶31

iiiTo uhat relief

¶32

6.BeforetheTribunal,onbehalfofthepetitioners'PWlwas examined and^{Exs.Al to A9 were marked'No oral/documentary} evidence was^{adducedon behatfof the respondents/RTC'}

¶33

7 . The Tribunat,^{alterconsidering the evidence and documents} available on^{record, partly allowed the claim petition of the} petitioners by awarding^{compensation of Rs'4'52'0OO/- with} interest⁽⁴⁾ 6u/o^{per annumfrom the date of petitiontill the date of} realization.Aggrievedbythesame,thepresentappeaibythe respondents/^RTC

¶34

a. Heard learned^{Standing Counselfor the appellants/RTc as} well as learned^{counsclfor the respondents/claim petitioners'} Perused the^record.

¶35

The main^{contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the} RTC iS that^{the learnedTribunal,without any documentaryproof,} has awarded^{lump-sum amount towards compensationand hence'}

¶36

¶37

prayed to allow the appeal by reducing the compensation amount. He also contended that the alieged accident occurred due to overload of the two wheeler which carried four persons and it is very inconvenient for the rider of the motorcycle to drive with four persons on a two wheeler which resulted in loosing control over the vehicle and caused the alleged accident. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in applying multiplier as ,lg, instead of '17'as the age of the deceased was 2g years and hence prayed to allow the appeal bv rcducing the compensation amount.

¶38

Per contra, the learncd counsel for the respondents argued that the learned Tribunal had au,arded just and reasonable compensation and intcrferencc of this Court is unwarranted and further contended that the claim of compensation is not adequate as no future prospects are au,arcled and no amount was awarded to the minor children and hence, prayed for enhancement of the same.

¶39

1 1. In view of the submissions made by both the parties, the point that emerges for dcterminarion is,

¶40

(11 Whether the order passed bg the learned_ Tibunat suffers from^ang inegulaitg?

¶41

(ii) Whether the responderts are entitled for enhancement of compensation uithout fiting ang X_objections?

¶42

¶43

POINTS:-

¶44

L2. This^{Court has perused the entire evidence and documents} filed by both^{parties.PetitionerNo' 1, who is the husband of the} deceased,^{was examined as PW1' He deposedabout the manner of} accidentanddeathofthedeceased.Thoughhewascrossexamined at^{length, nothingadverse was elicited to disbelievehis} evidence.^{Apart from oral evidence, the petitionersgot marked} Exs.A1 to A9^{on their behatfEx'A1-FIR discloses that the Police of} Maheshwaram^{Districtrcgistered a case in Crime No' 110 of 2O10} under Section^{3O4A againstthe driver of the RTC Bus bearing} No.AP-102-48O6,^{took up investigation and laid charge sheetunder} Ex.A3. Ex.A2^{is thc Inquest report' Ex'A4 is the Post mortem} examination^{report.Ex.A5is the Motor Vehicle Inspector report'} Ex.A6 is the^{Panchanamaof sceneof offence'Ex'A7is the Rough} sketch plan.^{Ex.A8is the photographand Ex'A9 is the Voter ID} card of the^deceased.

¶45

There^{is no disputeregarding the accidentand deathof the} deceased.^{The only contention of the learnedStanding Counsel for} appellant/^{RTC is t-hat the learned Tribunal had awardedlump-} sum amounl^{torvard s compcnsalion'}

¶46

On^{the othcr hand,it is the contentionof the learnedcounsel} for respondents/^{ctaim petitionersthat though the deceasedused}

¶47

¶48

t,cPJ

¶49

to work as a labour and used to earn Rs.3,3O0/- per month, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had taken the monthly income @ Rs.3,oOo/-. The rearned counser for the appellant has opposed the same as there rs no cross-appeal or cross -objections filed by the claimants. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon,ble Apex Court in the case between Surekha & Ors. Vs.Santosh & Orsr wherein, the Hontrle Apex Court held as under:-

¶50

'The appellate Court in motor accident clatrn cases hrrs the pouer to enhance the compensation award.ed, euen in the absence of a cross-appeal or crosstbjections bg the claimants_ This pouer is granted. und.er the prouisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Order XLI Rute 33 of the Code oJ- Ciuil Procedure. "

¶51

I8. In view of the above decision, this Court is ir.rclined to enhance the monthly income of the deceascd from Rs.3,OOO/_ to Rs'3,30o/- as per the averments of thc claim petition. Since the age of the deceased is 28 years by the time of her death, if 4O% is added towards her established income as per the dccision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.pranay Sethi I2oL7 16 scc 68()1, then the future ross of income comes to Rs.4,62O/- per month. As number o[ depenclants are four, if I /4th is deduced towards her contribution to thc family, then Lhe net

¶52

I 2o2o scc Online 1312

¶53

¶54

monthly^{incomecomesto Rs3} 'a65^{/ -and the annual income} comes to^{Rs.41,580/-and after applyingthe relevantmultiplier} '17', then^{the total loss of dependency comes to Rs'7'O6'B6O/-'} This Court^{by relyingupon the Judgment of Honble Apex Court in} the case^{ofNcrtional InsuranceCo' Ltd' Vs'Pranag Sethi &} others^{(2017 ACJ27OO)' whereinthe Hon'ble Apex Court had} fixed reasonable^{figures on conventional heads' viz'' Ioss of estate'} loss of^{consortiumand funeralexpenses as Rs' 15'O00/-'Rs'} 15,0O0i -^{respectivelywhich in a1l comes to} 40,000/-^{and Rs'} Rs.7O,O00/-^{(which shall carry1O7o enhancement for every three} years), is^{inclined to ar'varcl a sum of Rs'77'00O/-towards non-} pecuniary damages'^Hence '^{the total compensatlon' to whichthe} appellants^{are entitled, comes toRs'7'83'86O/-'Further'} \ considering^{the fact that the claim petitioners2 to 4 being minor} children^{of the deceased'this Court is inclined to award a sum of} Rs.40,0O0/-^{each under the head of parental consortiumas per} thedecisionoltheApexCourtinM(,,gmaGenerallnsurance Compcrng^{Limited a'Nanu Ran (l) Chuhru Ram and others2'} Thus, in^{all, the claimants are entitlecl ior a total compensation of} Rs.9,03,86O/-.

'(zors)^{ra scc r:o}

MGt.l

In rhe result, the Appeal fiied by the appellants/RTC is dismissed and the respondents are entitled for enhancement of compensation from Rs.4,S2,O0O/_ to Rs.9,O3,g60/_ which carries interest @ 7.So/o per annum as per decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others3 payable by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally u,ithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such payment made, the respondents /claim petitioners are entitled to ra,ithdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶60

Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHA MBA ASSISTAN REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶61

SECTION OFFICER 1 . Judge, (FTC). City Civil The Chairman Motor O":id:nj. Court, Hyderabad.Ctaims Tribunat_cum-Xil Additional Chief 32 9ne 9C^{to SRt C. SUNTLKUMA(,-} eJr-J.-ut" fopucr 4 9n" 99^{to sRtM. LINGAM,} noro."t" t6ptli"'^"", . Two CD Copies

To,

.,\S/karn

PMI{"

:r 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210812024

JUDGMENT+DECREE

MACMA.N o.2248 of 2019

¶70

l
!-) 2 3 ti[\i ?ml
C)l
.1.
S;P,{I C

MACMA IS DISMISSED

Pl'{ti, lq\1bl4,

[^32s3 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶75

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶76

PRESENT

¶77

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶78

M.A.C.M.A.No: 2248 of 2019

¶79

Between:

¶80

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kalwakurthy Depot, Kalwakurthy, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶81

The Managing Director, APSRTC, Administrative Building, Bus Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad.

¶82

..Appel lanURespondents

¶83

AND

¶84

V. Ramulu, Sio. Ramaiah,

¶85

Shiva, S/o. Ramulu,

¶86

Shirisha, D/o. Ramulu,

¶87

Shrikanth, S/o. Ramulu,

¶88

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶89

Appeal filed under Section^'1 73 of M.V- Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated. 15-02-2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1358 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶90

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of S SRI C. SUNIL KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI M. LINGAM, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶91

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶92

That the Motor Accident civir Misceflaneous Appear be and hereby is dismissed fired by the appe[ants/RTC and the reipondents are entiflei fo; enhancement of compensation from Rs.4,52,000/- to Rs.9,03,g60! which carries @ 7 .5o/o per annum as per decision of the Hon,ble npex Court ln Rajesh and others v. Rajbir singh and others payabre by Respondent Nos.1 & 2^jointry and severaily within a period of two monihs from the oate or reclift oi a copy of this order;

¶93

That upon such payment made, the respondents/claim petitioners are be and hereby entifled to withdraw the same as per the apporiionment made by the learned Tribunal;

¶94