Ammera Banu Vs Tsrtc

¶1

[³²⁵³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 347^AND 5'17^{OF 2018}

¶7

MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:³⁴⁷ OF²⁰¹⁸

¶8

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motoi Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dt.'15.09.2017, passed in MVOP. No. BB of 2015 on the file of the^Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum{he Court of the Chief Judge, City^{Civil Courts at} Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1. Ammera Banu, Wo Late Mohd.Yakub Ali, Age- 50 years, occ- Household, 2. Rizwana Begum,, D/o Late Mohd.Yakub Ali, Age-30^years, occ-^{Nill, R/o '17-} 3/8, 586,Chandanagar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

TSRTC, rep.by its MD, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad

¶14

Depot Manager, TSRTC, Bandlaguda Depot, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI T VISWARUPA CHARY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R ANURAG^(SC FOR TSRTC)

¶18

MOTOR ACcIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 517^{OF 2018}

¶19

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor^VehiclesAct to^{allow the MACMAby} setting aside the Judgment and Decree^{dt.15.09.2017, passed in MVOP. No. 88 of} 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims^{Tribunal-CumtheCourt of the Chief} Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

¶20

Between:

¶21

1 TELENGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORAT|ON, (prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corforation), Re?resented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Direclor, bus Bhairan, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶22

2 Depot Manager,, Telangana State Road Transport Jorporation (prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corpbration), panllaggO3^Qepot, Hyderabad. Owners of TSRTC (l\pSilTC bus bearing No.AP^'1 1 26575

¶23

..,APPELLANTS

¶24

AND

¶25

1 Ammera Bhanu, Wo. Late Mohd. Yakub Ali, Aged 48 years, Occ-Household, R/o. H.No. 17-318, 586, Chandanagar, Yakuthfura, Hyd,:rabad.

¶26

2 Rizwana Be3um,, D/o. Late Mohd. Yakub Ali, Aged 28 years, Occ- Nil, R/o. H.No 17-318, 586, Chandanagar, Yakuthpura, Fyderadad

¶27

...RESPONDENTS

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶29

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circr.rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the judgment and decree of lhe Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- the court of the chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad, dated. 1 5/09i201 7 made in MVOP.No.8Bl201 5.

¶30

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR T:SRTC)

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T VISWARUPA CHARY

¶32

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶34

M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2018 AND M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2018

¶35

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶36

Aggrieved by thc Au,ard passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal) in M.V.O.p.No.gg of 2015, dated 15.09.2017, M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2018 is trled by the Appe[lants/ claim petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation amount and the respondents/ RTC in the said M.V.O.P. pret-erred M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2018 seeking to ser-aside the Award passed by thc learned Tribunal. Since both the appeals arise out of the common Award passed in M.V.O.p.No.8g of 2015, dated 15.09.2017, they have been dealt with together and being disposed of by way of this common judgmenL.

¶37

For the sake of convenience, lhe parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

¶38

The brief facts of rhe case are that initially, petitioners hled a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 15,0O,00O/- for the death of Late Mohd.yakub Ali (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased,) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on the intervening night of

¶39

)

¶40

\IGP,J \1,,-,M ,\o<sup>rl: o1t,l i l1^t)[)018

¶41

Ol102.O9.2O14. It is slated by the petitioner,s that on the intervening night of Ol lO2-O9-2014, when thc det:eased was returning to his residence on his bicycle and rvhcn rcached near Anurag Defence Gate, Santhoshnagar at about 00.30 A.M., at that time, one APSRTC Bus bcaring No.AP 112-657a of E3andlaguda Depot came at a high spced from Chandrayanagrr [1a side lowards DRDL and dashed the deceased. As a result, h<: dcceased fell down from his bicycle and sustained gricvous i{cad injury and othcr serious injuries all over the body. Imm< dLately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Owaisi Hospit;.ll for treatment and later to Osmania General Hospital and rvhile undergoing t.reatmerlt, he succumbed to the injuries on thc samr: day.

¶42

B:rsed on a complaint, Police o[ Santlroshnagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.263 of^'2011.under Section 304 A and 337 of IPC against the driver of Crimt: APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP- I 12-6575.

¶43

It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and uscd to r)arn a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month by working as Head Cool:. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners were put to severe hardship, mental agony and became destitutc and hence filed

¶44

J

¶45

tv(i P.J \loona Nos 317 and 517 of )018

¶46

H

¶47

claim petilion sceking compensation of Rs.15,00,00O/-^{along with} interest agalnst the responden[s.

¶48

Respondents/APSRTC filed its counter disputing^the averments made in the claim petition including,^mannerof accident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and^negligenceof driver, age, occupation and income of^{the deceasedand contended} that the compensation claimed is excess^{and exorbitant ald hence} prayed to dismiss the claim against i[.

¶49

Based on the pleadings made by both the^{parties, the} learned Tribunal had framed the^{followingissues for conducting} trial:-

¶50

Whether the pleoded accident hod occurred resulting in death of deceased-Mohd.Yakub^{Ali to the} rash and negligent driuing of the diuer^{of APSRTCbus} beaing No.AP- 1¹ 2-657 5^?

¶51

Whether the petitioners are entitled to^anA compensotion and if so, at tuhat^{quantumond uhat is} the liabilitg of the respondents?

¶52

To ttthot relieJ?

¶53

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of^{the petitioner,PWs 1 & 2} were examined and Exs.A I to A5^{were marked. On behalf of} respondents/ RTC, no oral or^{documentary evidencewas adduced'}

¶54

4

¶55

.IIG P,J \ uL a ^rt J17 on.l i17 ol2018

¶56

9 . After considering the evidence and docu m :n r-s available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowcd lh,: claim petition by awarding compensation ol Rs.8,32,O00/- along^,.vith interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date of petition till the clate o[ realization payable by both the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said Award, M.A.C.M.A.347 of 20\8 is filed by the claim petitioners seeking enhancement of cc mpensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.5 i7 of 2017 is filed by respondents/RTC seeking to set aside the Award passed by the learned Tribr.rn rl

¶57

Heard arguments submifted by Sri T.Vi:;u rlrtrpa Chary, learned counsel for the appellants/ clai m petrtioners ln M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2OlB as well as Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents-RTC /: rppcltan ts tn M.A.C.M.A.No.5l7 of 2078

¶58

1 1. The contentions of the learned counscl lor altpellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2018 are that the learned Tr.ibr,tnal erred in taking very meager amount tou,ards the incomt' ,rf t I're deccased though he used to earn Rs. 12,000/ - per mont h by working as Head Cook in a Dhabha and ought to have awardecl interest @ l8o/o instead of 9%o and hence requested to allou, the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount. Learned cout-rsel, in support of his <;ontentions, also relied upon the judgme nr, of the Hon,ble

¶59

l

¶60

.v<iP J

¶61

\tac n \os J17 and ; l7 of )018

¶62

Supreme Court in the case between RAJAN V/ S ANIL VARCHESE & ANRr wherein, the monthly earnings for a person working as Cook were considered @ Rs.9,0O0/-

¶63

On the other hand, the contentions of the learned counsel lor respondents/appellants/ RTC in M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2018 are that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding excess amounts under conventional heads and also erred in granting excess interest@9o/o per annum on the compensation amount. It also contended that the Tribunal erred in considering future prospects @ 15% in the absence of documentary proof and hence requested to allow the Appeal by setting aside the Award passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶64

Now the points that emerge for consideration are,

¶65

(i) Whether the Auard passed by the leanted Tibunal requires interkrence of this Court?

¶66

(iil Whether the claim petitioners a.re entitled .fo, enhanceme nt of co mpe ns atio n?

¶67

Point$: -

¶68

14 . This Court has perused the evidence and documents available on record. Petitioner No.1/wife of the deceased examined herself as PW 1 . She reiterated the con tents made in the claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident. As she is not an eye witness lo the incident, she^got examined PW2, an eye-

¶69

'^{2022Law Suit(SC)I 532}

¶70

6

¶71

\I(;P,J \l,i Dt. 'ot 3J7 ohtl5l ol:018

¶72

witness to the incident. PW2 in his evidencc depr,sr:d that on the intervenirrg night of O1 lO2-O9-2O14, u,hen thr: cleceased^was procccding on his bicycle in order to go to his rcsilencc and u'hen reached near Anurag Defence Gatc, Santoshnagi r. the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 1 1 Z-657 5 drove the Bu s in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed th: bicycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down fronr his bicycle and sustainerl grievous Heacl injury and other serious injuries all over the body and while undergoing Lreatment, he sr- ccumbed to the injuries on the same day. Immediately al-ter lhe accident, hc reported thc matter to Police and the Police ol Santhoshnagar Policc Stalion registered a case in Crime No.263 of 2O14, con<lucted detailed investigation and hled chzrrge sheet against tl're rlrivcr of R'lC Bus bearing No.AP- 1 7-Z-6575.

¶73

As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.A I is the I.lR registered by Police of Santhoshnagar Police Station in Crime No.263 of 2Ol4 under sections 3O4-A and 337 ol IPC, conducted invcstigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A4 :rgainsl thc driver of RTC [3us Bearing No.AP- 1 l-2-6575.trx.A2 is thc rnquest rcport. Ex.A3 is the post mortem examination report which disclose s that the cause of death of Lhe deceased was due to "Hcad injury blunt injury to chest". Ex.AS is the Motor Vehicle lnspector which

¶74

7

¶75

,VCP.,J tlacn,.'os 117 ond 5t7 ol20t8

¶76

discloses that the occurrence of accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle.

¶77

Therefore, from the above oral and documentary evidence and in the absence ol any contra evidence, it can be safely presumed that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus Bearing No.Ap-l1-Z6575. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for appellants/ RTC in M.A.C.M.A.517 ol 2018 that the occurrence of accident was due to negligence on part of the deceased is unsustainable.

¶78

As far as quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment is concerned, learned counsel for appellants/claim petitioners in MACMA.347 of 2Ol8 contended that the learned Tribunal took very meager towards the income of the deceased though the deceased used to earn Rs. I2,OOO / - per month by working as Head Cook in a Dhabha and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 Law Suit (SC) 1532 between RAJAN V/S ANIL VARCHESE & ANR wherein the monrhlv salary for a Cook is taken as Rs.9,OOO/-

¶79

In the instant case, though pWl/wife of the deceased contended that the deceased used to work as Head Cook in

¶80

'q:::-!

¶81

8

¶82

\I(;P,J ll,,tD. \os.t|r and il7 of ]018

¶83

M/s.Classic Dhaba, Medchal and used to earn Rs.112,000/- per month, lrut she did not fiie any documentary prool in support cf her version. Hence, the learned Tribunal taking into account the datc ol accident, age of the deceased and considering thc fact that the deceasr:d was a skilled employee, in^,l're absence o[ documentary proof, took his monthly incomc (@ Rs.6,000/-which this Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to in terfcre u,ith the same.

¶84

A perusal of quantum of compensation au,arded in the impugncd judgment discloses that the learned Tribunal considcring the occupation of the deceased iLs permanent, considercd futurc prospects @) l5o/o. But the occupation of the deccaserl cannot lte considered as permanent, mot-e particularly, in the abscnce of anv documentary proof. Hence, thr: occupation of the decr:ased is considered as self employed. 'lhus the future prospects to be considered for self-empioyed persorr agcd between 50-60 r,<:ars is 10% as per the decision of the Hor,ble Apex Court in the casc between National Insurq.nce Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethi and. others2. After addition of lO%o towards lulure prospects, then the net future monthly income of the de:ezrsed comes to Rs.tr,600/-. Sincc the number of dependants are '2', il 1/3.a is

¶85

'^{zo17AcJ 27oo}

¶86

9

¶87

,IICI' J Uacna Nos.3a7 and 517 of 2018

¶88

I I

¶89

deducted towards personal expenses o[ thc deceased, then the net monthly income comes to Rs.3,300/-. Since the age of the deceased as per inquest and post-mortem reports^was 55^years, hence, considering the same, the appropriatc multiplier is^'11' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sorla Venna u. Delhi Transport CorPoration3. Therefore, the total loss of^income on account ol the death of the deceased comes to^{Rs.4,35,6OO/-.} Further, the Tribunal awarded a sum of^Rs. 1,OO,000/^{- towards} loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love^{and affection} and Rs.25,O0O/- towards transportation and funeral^expenscs u,hich this Court finds it to be excess and hereby reduce the^same to Rs.77,0OO/- by relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble^Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.^VsPranay

¶90

Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 27OO). Thus, the appellants^are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,12,600/-.

¶91

Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal^is concerned, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the^{Hon'ble Apex Court} in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and^{othersa, reduccsthe} rale o[ interest awarded by the Tribunal from^{9o/o to 7.5oh per} annum.

¶92

':oog ect 1298^(sc)

¶93

4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

¶94

l0

¶95

\r(; t,.J

¶96

tlt.:D1,1 Nos 317 ond 5t/ t)l)0t3

¶97

In the resutt, M.A.C.M.A.No.347 ol 2018 fik:d by claimants, is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 20 l8 filed try RTC is partlyallowed by rcducing the compensation awarded bv thc Tribunal from Rs.8,32,200/ to Rs.5,12,600 l- along with interesr @ 7.5% p.a. from the rlatc of pctition tilt the date of realiza ion. Therc shall be no order as to costs.

¶98

Miscellancous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶99

SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶100

To

¶101

\1 //TRUE COPY// \ ) SECTION OFFICER

¶102

'1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- the Coul of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

¶103

One CC to SRI T VISWARUPA CHARY Advocate [OPUC]

¶104

One CC to SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) [OPUC]

¶105

Two CD Copies

.TPK/PSt,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 1tO2t2O2S

ll,i ii? ?17<br>'t..;

¶110

COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.347 and 51t of 201g

¶111

MACMA.No.347 ot 2018 tS D|SM|SSED MACMA.No.S17 ot 2018 tS pARTLy ALLOWED

¶112

[³²⁵³ ]

¶113

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶114

TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶115

PRESENT

¶116

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶117

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVILTMISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOS: 347 AND 517 OF 2018

¶118

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MTSCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 347 OF 2018

¶119

Between:

¶120

Ammera Banu, Wo Late Mohd.Yakub Ali, Age- 50 years, occ- Household,

¶121

Rizwana Begum,, D/o Late Mohd.Yakub Ali, Age-30 years, occ- Nill, R/o 17-3l8, 586,Chandanagar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad.

¶122

...APPELLANTS

¶123

AND

¶124

TSRTC, rep.by its MD, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad

¶125

Depot Manager, TSRTC, Bandlaguda Depot, Hyderabad.

¶126

... RESPONDENTS

¶127

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 517 OF 2018

¶128

Between:

¶129

l TELENGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), Represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, MUsheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶130

Depot Manager,, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), Bandlaguda Depot, Hyderabad. Owners of TSRTC (APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 1126575 ...APPELLANTS

¶131

AND

¶132

'1 . Ammera Bhanu, Wo. Late Mohd. Yakub Ali, Aged 48 years, Occ-Household, R/o. H.No. 17-318, 586, Chandanagar, Yakuthpura, I;lyderabad.

¶133

Rizwana Begum,, D/o. Late Mohd. Yakub Ali, Aged 28 years, Occ- Nil, Rio. H.No. l7-318, 586, Chandanagar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad.

¶134

...RESPONDENTS

¶135

t Appeals filed Under Section^'173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dt.15.09.2017, passed in MVOP. No. BB of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

¶136

These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and ther material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, Advocate for the Appellants in MAClt4A.No.347 of 2018 and Respondents in IVACMA.No.517 of 2018 and Sri R.Anurag (SC For RTC) for the Respondents in MACII/A No.347 of 2018 and Appellants in MACMA.No.517 of 2018.

¶137

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

¶138

That the M.A.C.M.A.No.347 ot 2018 filed by claimants be and hereby is dismissed ;

¶139

That the M.A.C.M.A.No.517 of 2018 filed by RTC br-'and hereby is partly allowed by reducing the compensation awarded cy the Tribunal from Rs.8,32,2001 to Rs.5,12,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization; and

¶140