Apsrtc Vs B. Ratnakumari

¶1

1344/-l

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAO

¶3

FRIDAY, THE^{THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE} rwo iHousnuo^{AND TWENTYFlvE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICETIRUMALADEVIEADA}

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIViLMtSCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO:} 454 0F 2021

¶7

Appeal under^{Section 173 of Motor VehiclesAct againstthe order and} Decree made^{in M.V.O.p i". S+ttiOtl dated 22.02.2O21on the file of the Court} of the chairman^{Motor n""iJ"nt clairnsTribunal-cum-thechief Judge, city civil} Court at^HYderabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 APSRTC,^{Rep. by its ManagingDirector' Bus.Bhavan' RTC X roads'} tt/usheerabad,^{Hvoerauaol:' jfiietentiy - it'eanait Nehru Bus station'} Viiayawada,^{KrishnaDistrict)}

¶10

2 APSRTC,^{rep. by its Depot Manager'Vijayawada Depot' Vijayawada Urban'} Krishna District^-.520013

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

e Narendra^{Naik,Aged aboul 19 years' Occ}

¶14

1 . B. Ratnakumari,^{W/o. Lat} O-S80,^{ga.a"rGhat-,HYderabad'}

¶15

Household,^{Flio.H.No l 4-}

¶16

2 P. Gopi Naik,^{S/o. BalaiahNaik,Aged about 48 years' Occ Aqriculture' Rl/o'} H.No.5-151 ,^{AnanthavaramViii;ir;' fh'lt;;Mahdat' Guntur District' A P'}

¶17

3 P. Laxmi, W/o.^{P. GopiNaik,Aged about 45 ye-ars'Occ Labour' Fl/o'H No 5-} i si, Aiilhin'r;irm^{Vitug",in"'tturuvtanoat' Guntur District' A P'}

¶18

..RESPONDENTS

¶19

Counsel^{for the Appellants:SRI' KALLAKURT SRINIVASA RAO}

¶20

Counsel^{forthe Respondents: G NARENDER REDDY}

¶21

The Court^{made the following:JUDGMENT}

¶22

1

¶23

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶24

M.A.C. M.A.NO .454 oF 2021

¶25

JUDGME NT:

¶26

This appeal is filed by the ApSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree daLed 22.02.202 1 in M.V.O.p.No.547 of 201Z passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum_Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short.,the trial Court,,).

¶27

For convenience and clarit5r, the parties herein are referred to as they u.ere arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶28

The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 06.07.2O16 u,hile the deceased was proceeding from Sattenapally towards Anantharam on his motor bike, one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP- 1 12-6970 rvhich was proceeding from Vijayawada towards Amaravathi, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against thc deceased, due to which the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and riied on the spot, The claimants sought a compensation of Rs. I S,OO,OOO/_.

¶29

The respondent No. 1 and 2 filed their complaint denying the avermen[s of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. He further contcnded tr-rat the pctiLion is bad for non_joinder oI. the owner and insurer of the motor hil<e. It is their further contention that th9 ----

¶30

ETD,I MACMA^No.454-2021

¶31

t

¶32

)

¶33

deceased^{was going rt a zrgzagmanner at a high speedand on} observing^{the same, the driver of the bus took the bus to his right} side and stopped^{the bus, but the deceasedwho lost controlover} his motor^{bikecame into contact with the stationed bus and fell} down on the^{road and sustained injuries' Thus, theircontentionis} that contributory^{negligencehas to be attributedto the deceased} and that^{there is no rash and negligence on part of the RTC Bus} driver.

¶34

Based on above^{pleadings,the Tribunalhas framedthe} following lssues:

¶35

1. Whether the^{pleaded accidentdotedO6.072016 occurred resultingtr} death oJ the deceased^{P- Narendra Naik,due to the rash ondnegligent} diuing of th.e diuer^{of APSRTCbus bearing registrationNo AP 112-} 6970?

¶36

1. Whetler the^{petitioner is entitled to ang comPensation,ifso' from} whom and. to uhat^ertent?

¶37

1. To txhzt^relieJ?

¶38

To prove their case,^{the petitioners got examinedPWl to 3} and got marked^{Exs.Alto ,{6. On behalf of the respondentsRW1} was examined.

¶39

Based on the^{evidenceon record, the Tribunal has awarded a} compensation^{of Rs. 13,19,600/-. Aggrieved by the said award' the} present appeal is^{preferred by the APSRTC'}

¶40

ETD,J MACMA No.4S4 2021 3

¶41

i I I

¶42

Hearci the submissions of Sri K. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and sri G. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence and that the Tribunal has granted excess compensation under various heads and that the Tribunal failed to see that there is no negligence on part of the RTC Bus driver. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to take note of contributory negligence of the deceased as the accident occurred in the opposite direction and that the rider of the motor bike lost control of the bike and dashed against the bus. He further argued that the petition is bad for non_ joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike and that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW1 in proper perspective. Hc also contended that the petitioners have not hled any proof of income of the deceased, but still the Tribunal has granted Rs.6,O0O/ - per month which is too high. He therefore, prayed to reduce the compensation and also with regard to the rate of interest, the Tribunal has awarded 9Zo interest and he therefore, Prayed to reduce it to Z.Soh.

¶44

Learned counscr for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has given a very reasoned judgment awarding just compensation to the claimants and that in view of

¶45

ETD,J MACMA^No.454-2021

¶46

4

¶47

the loss sustained^{by the petitioners' the Tribunal has granted 97o} interest on^{the compensation} "vhich^{cannot be interferedwith' He} therefore^{prayed to upholdthe order anddecree of the trial Court'}

¶48

11 Basecl on^{the above rival contentions,this Court frames the}

¶49

following^{pointsfor determinatron:}

¶50

- igLigence Wtlether^{tlLe oJ accident the R'tC has bus diuer not ocanrred' beaing due to No-AP-112-6970?the rash and}

¶51

W1ather there^{is ang contibutorynegligence on part of the} deceased^{in the occurrence of the accident?}

¶52

3- Whether the^{compensationgranted bg the Tibunolis just} and reosonable'

¶53

Whether tte ordei^{anridecree of the trial Court needany} interference?

¶54

'fo uhat relief

¶55

t2. POINT No.1^{& 2:}

¶56

The contention^{of the appellants counselis that the driver of} a) RTC Bus was^{not at all rash ancl negligent and that he was} cautiously^{drivingthe bus and that on observing the rider on the} motor bike^{going in a zigzag l11anner, he stoppedthe bus by taking} it to the^{right side, but that the bike rider has comein the opposite} directionandlostcontroloverthebikeandhitagainsttheRTC Bus.

¶57

The contention^{of the petitioners is that the accident} b) occurred due^{to the rash and negligence of driver of the RTCBus} bearing No.AP-^{1 lZ-6970. In support of their contention PW2 was}

¶58

ETD,] MACMA No.454 2021

¶59

5

¶60

examined who is cited as LW3 in the charge sheet. His evidence reveals that he was travelling in the RTC Bus bearing No.Ap-l12_ 6970 proceeding from Ananthavaram to Amaravath i on 06.0Z.2016 and that when the bus reached l g km milestone near Thulluru and that the rider of the motor bike bearing No.Ap-O7BF_1 242 was proceeding from Sattenapally towards Ananthavaram, the driver ef the RTC Bus has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner .^{withoutblou,ing any} horn and went to its extreme right side and dashed to the said motor bike, due to which the rider of the motor bike fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. In his cross examitration, suggestions were given to him that the deceased lost contro[ over his bike and hit the bus, which were denied by him. Thus the witness was firm in his cross examination and there is nothing to discredit his evidence.

¶61

c) RWl was examined b-v the respondents in proof of their contention that there was no negligence of the Bus driver. He is none other than the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.Ap_ I I Z- 6970 In his chief examination, his evidence is to the effect that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the rider of the motor bike

¶62

d) In his cross examination he has admitted that a case was registered against him by the police and a charge sheet is filed agarnst him

¶63

.l

¶64

ETD,] MACMA^No.454-2021

¶65

6

¶66

A perusal^{of t-he FIR under Ex'Al and charge sheet under} e) Ex.A2^{reveals that the accidcntoccurrecldue to the rash and} negligence^{of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No'AP-112-6970} and the^{charge sheetis filed against him' Thus the evidence of} PW2 coupied^{with Ex'A1and A2 reveal that the accidentoccurred} due to^{the rash and negligence of the driver of RTC Bus and there} is no contributory^{negligenceon part of the deceased'}

¶67

Point Nos.^{Iarrd 2 are answered accordingly'}

¶68

Point No.3: The contention^{of the appellantis that the Tribunal has} a) granted^{huge amounts under variousheadsand arrivedat excess} compensation.^{The case of the petitioners is that the deceased used} to work^{as an Auto Driver and Labourer in Construction fieldand} was earning^{Rs' l2,O0u/- per month No proof is {iled in this} regard

¶69

ln RrrtnrrchcLndrappa^{vs'Manager' RogalSundarala} b) Altiance^{Insurance CompdngLirnitedl} '^{the Apex Court has held} that in^{the absenceof any proof of incomewith regard to a} labourer,^{Rs.4,50O/- per month can be safeiytakenas the income'} In the^{said casc the accident occurredin the year 2OO4'while in} the^{presentcase,the accidenthas occurredin the year 2016' In}

¶70

'^{(2or I).,|t scc236}

¶71

ETD,] MACMA No.454 2021

¶72

1

¶73

I I

¶74

the present case, the deceased used to work as an Auto Driver and Labourer in Construction field. Considering the same, the notional income assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/_ per month appears to be justihed.

¶75

c) The Tribunal has considered the principles laid down in National fnsurq.nce Compang Limited Vs. pranag Sethi & Others2, by the Apex Court and has assessed the future prospects to be 4OVo and has also taken into account the deduction of 1/3ra since the claimants are three in number.

¶76

d) It is revealed from the post Mortem Examination report under Ex.A4 that the d.eceased was aged 25, years. Therefore, it has applied the proper multiplier of ,1g,. It has also awarded loss of consortium, Ioss of estate and funeral expenses.

¶77

e) Since all the principles are considered by the Tribunal while awarding compensation, it is opined that there is no need to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶78

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

¶79

2 AtR 2017 SCC 51s7

¶80

EID,] MACIMA^No.454-2021

8

*l

-)

L4. Point^No.4:

In^{view of the hndingsarr-ived at point No' 1 to 3 ' there ts no} a) need to^{interfere with the Ordei:andDecree of the Tribunaland the} same is^{upheldwith regard to quantumof compensation'The} Tribunal^{has granted interestat the rate of 97o on the quantum of} compensation'^{The appellant counsel has argued that the rate of} interest^{awardedby the Tribunalis on the higher side and prayed} to reduce^{the same}

¶86

lrt Jadau^{Saroia Bai Vers'us Ghule NdgaRao and} b) Anothef ;^{a Coordinate Bencho[ this High Court has granted} interest @⁷ '5o/o^{per annum on the enhancedamountof} compensation'

¶87

lo Bandauath^{Mangla and AnotherVersusBandaoath} c) Suresh^{and Other{and National InsuranceCompangLimited} Versus.^{M. Venkatesuarulu and Other.J; also interest @7 '5%} per annum^{was grantedon the enhancedamountof compensation'}

¶88

d) ln^{llnited InsurdnceCotrlPoLrrgLimitedVersus' Bollann} Lingatahs;^{r't'Lr en the Tribunai has grantedrate of interest @ 97o} per annum,^{the High Court has modihed the rate of interestto} 7.s./:pd annum^{from the dateof petitiontill realization}

¶89

I 2022 SCC Online TS 606

¶90

4 2023 SCC Online TS 1095

¶91

5 2023 scc online TS I t70

¶92

6 2024 scc online TS 9 t5

¶93

ETD,J MACMA No.454 2021

¶94

9

¶95

e) A Division Bench of this High court in Ndtionar rnsurance Compang Lirntted Versus Jagadish prajapathlz; has granted 7.5 Vo per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization

¶96

0 Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consrstently granting interest @ Z.Syo on the compensation that is awarded in such cases.

¶97

g) Therefore the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.SVo. Point No.4 is answered accordingly.

¶98

15.^poin t No.5:-

¶99

In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by rhe ApSRTc rs partly allowed modif5,ing the Order and Decree daLcd, 22.O2.2O2I in M.V.O.P.No.S 4Z of 2Ol7 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum_Chief Judge, Ci$ Civil Court, Hyderabad, by reducing the rate of interest from 9%o to Z.S,)/. per annum from the date of claim petition till reaiization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos. I and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount il:any alread y depositecl 7 2024 SCC Online TS 2050

¶100

ETD,J MACMA^{No 454-2021}

¶101

10

¶102

On such^{deposit,the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the said} amount^{without fumishing an)' security' as per their respective} shares^{as allottedby the Tribuno'lNo costs'}

¶103

Miscellaneouspetitions,pendingifany'inthisappeal'shail

¶104

stand closed.

¶105

Sd/. SRt^{MOHD. OSMANALI BAIG} SS STA^{NT REGISTRAR}

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 The Chairman,^{MotorAccident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge' City Civil} Co"urt]^{iva"raoad' (withrecords)}

¶110

One CC^{to SRIKALLAKURI SRINIVASARAO Advocate [OPUCI}

¶111

J One CC^{to SRIG NARENDER REDDY Advocate [OPUCI}

¶112

4 Two CD^CoPies

GR

(u-

HIGH COURT

DATED:13 t}6t21zs

JUDGMENT

MACMA.N o.4i4 ot 2021

¶119

SfA
ri
o ? i Hut 2t15
_:1

¶120

PARTLY ALLOWNG THE
MACMA WTHOUT COSTS
/! t I
b L// $ 1)

¶121

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶122

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶123

PRESENT

¶124

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICETIRUMALADEVI EADA}

¶125

MOTOR ACCIDENT^{CIVIL MISCE LLANEOUS APPEALNO:45\OF2021}

¶126

Between:

¶127

1 APSRTC, Rep. by its^{ManagingDirector,} Bus Bhavan, RTC X^roads, Pandit Nehru Bus^station,

¶128

Musheerabad, Hyderabad^(presentlyat Vijayawada, Krishna^District)

¶129

2.APSRTC,rep.byitsDepotl/anager,VijayawadaDepot,ViiayawadaUrban' Krishna District^-.520013

¶130

...APPELLANTS

¶131

AND

¶132

1 B. Ratnakumari, W/o.^{Late Narendra Naik,Aged about19 years, Occ} Household, R/o.n.No.t^{+-6-980, Bazaar Ghat, Hyderabad'}

¶133

z P. Gopi Naik, S/o.^{BalaiahNaik, Aged. about 48 years, Occ Agriculture.' Rl/o '} H.f.roB-r Sr, Ananthavaram^{Villagd' Thulium Mandal, Guntur District, A'P'}

¶134

3 P. Laxmi, W/o. P. Gopi^{Naik, Aged about 45 ye-ars, Occ Labour, Ri/o H No 5-} r si, Anuhtnru"ram^{Village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District, A P'}

¶135

...RESPONDENTS

¶136

Appeal under Section^{173 of MotorVehiclesAct against the order and Decree} made in [vl.v.o.P^{No. 547t2017 dated 22.O2.20210n the file of the court of the} chairman Motor^{Accident claimsTribunal-cum-thechief Judge, city civil court} at Hyderabad.

¶137

This appeal coming^{on for hearing and upon perusingthe grounds of} appeal, the Judgment^{and-Decreeof the Lower Court and the materialpapers in} the case and upon hearing^{the argumentsof sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Advocatefor} the Appellants and of Sri G.^{NarenderReddy,Advocate for the respondents'}

¶138

This Court doth Order and Decree^{as follows:}

¶139

That the Motor Accident Civil^{Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is} Partly allowed.

¶140

2 That the Tribunal be anrf h_e1gby- modifying the order and decree dated 22.02.2021 in M.V.o.p No 547.;f 201;,;;".;; iy the Chairman, Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunat_cum_Chief iroS", CiiV Aivil Court, Hyderabad :iitri:,,l[".lii?""J,,:j;:"']^{i,oi s7; i"" rYiz"oJ' ],n,,} r,.o, rhe date or

¶141

? However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited.

¶142

4 That the respondents Nos_ 1 and 2 be and hereby directed to deposit the i ni"l" J, ;il# ; pe riod or two mo nths

¶143

,13;ri#i:l: :?",J::,XJ,:.,..,,"0 uro,ntlr ;;;ri;;;i[31,,x01""^{of this judsmeni after} o"Jr.ti,g' il"

¶144

5 on such deposit. that- the. petition e rs be and hereby enti,ed to withdraw the said amount without furnishinl;;r" ;fi;i; shares as allottdd by the Tribuna I y as per their respective

¶145