THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.368 OF 2008 Date: 17.06.2014 Between:
1. APSRTC, rep. by its General Manager, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, and another.
… Appellants/Petitioners And
1. Smt. Manju Patak and others.
… Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.368 OF 2008 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation being aggrieved by the order/award dated 8.3.2007 passed in O.P.No.2442 of 2003 on the file of the Court of IV-Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XVIII Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad awarding compensation of Rs.9,16,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
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, two minor children and parents of one Dwijendranath Pathak, who died in a road accident on 20.5.2003. It was a case where on a fateful day while the deceased was standing by the roadside with his motorcycle bearing No.AP 10 S 6883, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9207 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital. In respect of the above incident, a case in Crime No.174 of 2003 of Humayunnagar P.S. came to be registered. It is stated that the deceased was young and dynamic in his profession and has no vices; he was an expert in teaching Mathematics and Physics and he was the only bread-winner in his family and that the entire family was depended on the deceased. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of crime vehicle, the claimants filed O.P. No.2442 of 2003 on the file of the Court of IV-Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVIII Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees Ten lakhs only).
The respondents Corporation (appellants herein) filed a counter denying the allegations in the petition and also the manner in which the accident took place. The respondents further denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident caused death to the deceased that took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent No.1's vehicle?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?
(3) To what relief?
In support of the claimants (respondents herein), P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents/appellants. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court below held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 9207 and awarded compensation of Rs.9,16,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The learned counsel for the appellants mainly submits that the material available on record does not anywhere reflect that the driver of RTC Bus was at fault. On the other hand there is material to show that the accident took place due to rash and negligence of the driver in parking the vehicle on the road. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is on a higher side and the same needs to be reduced.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents (claimants) submits that the evidence of P.W.2 clearly establishes the manner in which the accident took place and that the amount awarded being just and reasonable warrants no interference from this Court.
The only point that arise for consideration is whether the APSRTC bus was responsible for the accident and whether compensation of Rs.9,16,000/- awarded by the Court below is reasonable, just and fair.
The oral evidence of P.W.2 (eye witness) is corroborated by Ex.A1 First Information Report coupled with Ex.A2 Inquest report and also the averments made in the charge-sheet which is produced on record as Ex.A3. The postmortem report which is produced on record as Ex.A4 also discloses that the deceased died due to hit by a vehicle. Therefore evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 coupled with Ex.A2 Inquest report clearly established that the accident took place due to rash and negligent manner of the driver of RTC bus. Insofar as the age of the deceased is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A2 Inquest report and Ex.A4 Postmortem report indicate that the deceased was 38 years old at the time of the accident. No contra evidence has been let in to show that there was negligence on the part of the deceased and the deceased himself was responsible for the accident.
P.W.3 in her evidence deposed that the deceased was a partner in SMS Study Circle (P) Limited, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad and used to get Rs.15,000/- per month towards his share in tutorials and that they have got 400 students. His evidence also discloses that the deceased was expert in Mathematics and Physics having good command over the said subjects. In support of the same, the claimants produced Ex.A10 the income certificate.
Having regard to the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants and while taking into consideration Ex.A10 income certificate, the Court below fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month. After deducting one-third towards personal living expenses, the actual earnings of the deceased was fixed at Rs.4,667/- per month and the annual contribution to family at Rs.56,004/-. However, while calculating the total loss of earnings, the Court below applied multiplier "16" for calculating the total loss of total earnings.
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said finding of the Court in adopting the multiplier “16” is illegal and the same needs to be interfered with.
A perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v.
[1]
DTC would show that the multiplier to be adopted in the case of person
whose age 36 to 40 years is "15" and not "16". Therefore, the compensation works out to Rs.8,40,640/- and not Rs.8,96,064/- as awarded by the Court below.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submits that the Court below failed to take into consideration the future loss of earnings and further the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded towards funeral expenses, love and affection and consortium is on a lower side. Though the claimants have not filed any appeal questioning the quantum awarded under those counts but in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajana Prakash
[2]
v. Divisional Manager
the claimant can always argue for the compensation to be awarded on other counts which were not considered by Tribunal in an appeal filed by the owner/insurer where quantum is to be reduced. Having regard to the fact that the dependents are five in number and no future prospects of the deceased were taken into consideration, the amount of Rs.9,16,000/- awarded by the Court below which is inclusive of loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate and miscellaneous expenditure stands confirmed.
The appeal, therefore, fails and accordingly the same is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR,J Date: 17.06.2014 Gbs
[1] (2009) 6 SCC 121
[2] (2011) 14 SCC 639