THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.1685 OF 2008 AND M.A.C.M.A. No.3060 OF 2005 Date: 10.07.2014 In MACMA No.1685 of 2008:
Between:
1. APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Jubilee Bus Stand, Secunderabad.
2. APSRTC, rep. by Depot Manager, Picket Depot, Secunderabad. … Appellants In MACMA No.3060 of 2005:
Between:
1. APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Jubilee Bus Stand, Secunderabad.
2. APSRTC, rep. by Depot Manager, Picket Depot, Secunderabad. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.1685 OF 2008 AND M.A.C.M.A. No.3060 OF 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT:
M.A.C.M.A. No.1685 of 2008 is filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation being aggrieved by the order/award dated 14.3.2005 passed in M.V.O.P. No.2530 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) awarding compensation of Rs.8,09,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
M.A.C.M.A. No.3060 of 2005 is preferred by the claimants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.2530 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of the same.
Since the parties and the issue involved in both the matters are common, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and perused the material available on record.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
The facts in issue are as under:
The claimants who are the petitioners in the Original Petition are none other than the wife and two major children of one Sudershan, who died in a road accident that occurred on 23.2.2000 at 5.00 pm. On the said day while the deceased was proceeding in an Auto bearing Regn. No.AP 10 T 8172 from Secunderabad to Hyderabad and when the said Auto reached Tank Bund, Near Thyagayya Statute, the offending APSRTC bus bearing Regn. No.AP 10 Z 6829 was coming from Hyderabad towards Secunderabad, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed dashed the auto. As a result of which, the driver of the auto and the deceased sustained injuries. However, they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, on the next day i.e., on 24.2.2000 at about 5.00 a.m. the deceased succumbed to injuries.
The further case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as Superintendent, Government Railway Police, Secunderabad and he was paid Rs.11,776/- per month. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of crime vehicle, the claimants filed M.V.O.P. No.2530 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad claiming compensation of Rs.9 lakhs (Rupees Nine lakhs only).
The Corporation filed counter and averred that the driver of the auto was negligent in driving auto and that the compensation claimed by the claimants is on higher side.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident in question took place on 23.2.2000 at about 5.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 6829, by its driver?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(3) To what relief?
In support of the claim, the wife of deceased was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 & 3, apart from marking Exs.A1 to A8 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondents, the conductor of the bus was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B1 was marked. Admittedly the driver of the bus was not examined.
P.W.2 is an eye-witness. R.W.1 is the Conductor of the Bus. It is not in dispute that the police filed a case against R.W.1. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. She is not an eye-witness. According to P.W.2, he was working as a Constable, CCS, Control Room, Nampally, Hyderabad, on the date of accident he along with another constable S. Hanumantha Rao were on patrolling duty on upper tank bund road. According to him, the driver of the bus had driven the bus at a high speed and dashed against the auto. It is also his case that himself and another constable shifted the injured to the hospital. He lodged a complaint with the police. According to P.W.2, he was at a distance of 20 yards from the place of the accident. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his credibility.
According to R.W.1, there was heavy traffic and therefore the bus was proceeding slowly. It is the case of R.W. 1 that the auto was coming at high speed from opposite direction and dashed their bus. Admittedly R.W.1 did not lodge any police complaint. When there was heavy traffic, there was no possibility of auto being driven at high speed. He says that Auto driver was in a drunken state, but admittedly he did not lodge any compliant and there is nothing on record to show that the auto driver was under drunken state. It is not in dispute that the police filed charge-sheet against the driver of the bus.
Having regard to the evidence adduced before the Tribunal below, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of RTC bus was negligent cannot be disturbed.
As far as compensation is concerned, according to P.W.1, wife of deceased, her husband was aged about 48 years and earning a salary of Rs.11,776/- per month. Ex.A8 is the Matriculation Certificate. In this original certificate, the date of birth of the deceased was shown as 7.2.1953. Thus, as on the date of the accident the deceased was aged about 47 years. When the deceased is aged about 47 years, appropriate multiplier in the light of the
[1]
decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation is ‘13’. The claimants have also filed Ex.A6 Salary Certificate issued by the Administrative Officer, Government Railway Police, Secunderabad which shows the particulars of salary i.e., Pay at Rs.9,000/-, DA at Rs.736/-, HRA at Rs.1800/-, CCA at Rs.240/- and thus total in all Rs.11,776/-. Except income tax, nothing could be deducted from the salary certificate. Even if income tax component is deducted, net salary of the deceased can easily be taken at Rs.10,000/-. In case of employees, there should be addition to the salary as per the latest judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh
[2]
. In case if the deceased was aged between 40 – 50 years, there should be 30% addition. Accordingly, 30% of income should be added to the income of the deceased, then the income would become Rs.13,333/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.3,333/- = Rs.13,333/), deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.8,889/- (Rs.13,333/- - Rs.4,444/- = Rs.8,889/-). Applying the multiplier ‘13’ in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (1 supra) the total loss of dependency would be Rs.13,86,684/- (Rs.8,889/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.13,86,684/-) It is settled law that the first claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards loss of consortium. The 1st claimant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) towards funeral expenses.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the claim of the claimants is only Rs.9 lakhs. Even if according to the claim petition irrespective of the claim made by the claimants, in the light of the Apex Court Judgment in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2 supra), the Court should not succumb to niceties or technicalities in fixing the compensation. Attempt of the Court should be to equate, as far as possible, misery on account of the accident with the compensation that the injured/dependants should not face vagaries of life on account of the discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Hence, I am of the view that in the light of the judgment in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2 supra) the claimants are entitled to compensation in excess of what is claimed in the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
In the result, MACMA No.3060 of 2005 is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.8,09,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs and nine thousand only) as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.13,86,684/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs eighty six thousand six hundred and eighty four only) to be paid by the respondents Corporation. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. Consequently MACMA No.1685 of 2008 is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the appeals shall stand closed.
B. CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt 10.07.2014 gbs
[1] (2009) 6 SCC 121
[2] (2013) 9 SCC 54