THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A No. 2148 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the order dated 11.03.2008 passed in O.P.No.351 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), at Mahabubnagar, wherein and whereunder a sum of Rs.2,51,000/- was awarded as compensation, the APSRTC preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The facts in issue are as under:
The claimants who are five in number filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of one Ganji Kistappa, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.02.2006. The claimants who are the wife, parents and four minor children of the deceased alleged that on the date of accident the deceased boarded an RTC bus bearing No.AQ 10Z 9457 owned by APSRTC which was running between Yadagiri and Adangal. At about 1230 PM, when the bus was one kilometer away from Bichala gate, the bus door opened suddenly and the deceased fell down. As a result of which the deceased fell down. Thereafter, the rear tyre of the bus ran over the body of the deceased leading to his instantaneous death. Since the claimants lost their only source of income, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondents.
2. Respondents 2 and 3 remained exparte while respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments in the petition and also disputed the age and income of the deceased.
3. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the accident occurred on 20.02.2006, at 12.30 PM near Bichalagate, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending APSRTC bus bearing No. AQ 10Z 9475 by its driver and whether it resulted in causing death of the deceased Kistappa?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
4. During pendency of the petition, the claimants filed I.A.No.1876 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of claim from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- and the same was allowed. Later, the claimants filed petition for amending the provision of law to one Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, instead of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same was also allowed.
In support of the claim, the first claimant examined herself as PW1 and an eye witness to the accident as PW2. She also got marked Exs.A1 to A6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
The evidence on record would establish that on 20.02.2006 at about 1220 PM, a case in Crime No.11 of 2006 was registered for an offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. The informant in the said report was examined as an eye witness to the incident. He clearly stated in his report that at the time of the accident the door of the bus suddenly got opened due to which the deceased who was standing at the door fell down and thereafter the rear tyre of the bus ran over the deceased. The inquest report which was produced on record as Ex.A2 also indicate the same and corroborate the contents of First Information Report which was marked as Ex.A1. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet which was marked as Ex.A5. The investigation done by the police disclose that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the APSTRC bus. Therefore, the claimants established beyond reasonable doubt that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the APSRTC bus. Even otherwise, since the claim petition was altered from Section 166 to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioners are entitled to compensation as the death of the deceased was due to a road accident.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, PW1, in his evidence stated that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and in support of the same, she got filed Ex.A6 a certificate issued by Grampanchayat, Sedam of Karnataka State. Though the said certificate issued by the Sarpanch show that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but the said document cannot be relied upon as the person who has issued the said certificate was not examined and nobody relating to the Grampanchayat was examined to prove the contents of the said certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected Ex.A6. However, the fact that the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 45 years at the time of the accident cannot be disputed. Even though the claimants could not legally prove the income of the deceased, it does not mean that the deceased who was hale and healthy was not doing any work at the time of accident. Since there are number of dependents on him, he would have been doing some work or the other to eke out his livelihood. Even assuming that the deceased was doing the job of a coolie he would be getting not less than Rs.75/- per day. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.75/- per day warrants no interference. In fact the claimants have not filed an appeal challenging the income of the deceased. If the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.2,250/- per month, the annual income would be Rs.27,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses, the loss of earnings would be Rs.18,000/-. Taking the age of the deceased between 45 to 50 years, the suitable multiplier would be 13. Adopting multiplier 13, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.2,34,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Awarding the said amounts was not seriously challenged by the corporation.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as a windfall or a bonanza, but the same in my view appears to be just and reasonable warranting no interference.
In the result, the appeal lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed confirming the finding of the Tribunal on all aspects.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 08.07.2014 ksm