IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 1040 OF 2018 AND CROSS OBJECTION No.18 OF 2019

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of M.V. Act and Memorandum of Cross Objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No.638 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad.

Between:

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

...Appellant/Respondent

AND

• 1. Gyara Sunitha Devi, W/o. Late Soloman, aged 40 years, Occ. Household, . R/o. 10-4-D/457, Lohianagar, Opp. Teacher Colony, East Marredpalli, Secunderabad.
• 2. Gyara Varun Raj, S/o. Late Soloman, aged 20 years, Occ. Student, (minor), represented by his next friend and Natural mother i.e. first Respondent, R/o.10-4-D/457, Lohianagar, Opp. Teacher Colony, East Marredpalli, Secunderabad. (R2 declared as major and discharging the guardianship of the R1 vide Court Order dated. 01.05.2019 in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in M.A.C.M.A 1040 of 2018)
• 3. Gyara Elina, W/o. Veeraiah, aged 65 years, Occ. Household, R/o. 10-4-D/457, Lohianagar, Opp. Teacher Colony, East Marredpalli, Secunderabad.
• 4. Gyara Veeraiah, S/o. Ramaiah, aged 70 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. 10-4-D/457, Lohianagar, Opp. Teacher Colony, East Marredpalli, Secunderabad.

...Respondents/Petitioners

IA NO: 2 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To stay the execution of the judgment and decree of the court of the XXVII Additional

Chief Judge-Cum-Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal City Civil Court at Secunderabad dated.09/10/2017 made in MVOP.NO.638/2014 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted by this Hon'ble Court by order dated: 24-4-2018 in IA No. 2 of 2018 in MACMA No. 1040 of 2018.

Cross Objection NO: 18 OF 2019

Between:

• 1. Gyara Sunitha Devi, W/o. Late G. Solomon, About 44years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. 10-4-D/457, Lohia Nagar, Opp. Teachers Colony, East Maredpalli, Secunderabad.
• 2. Gyara Varun Raj, S/o. Late G. Solomon, About 20 years, Occ. Student, R/o.H.No. 10-4-D/457, Lohia Nagar, Opp. Teachers Colony, East Maredpalli, Secunderabad.
• 3. Gyara Elina, W/o. Veeraiah, Age. 69 years, Occ. Household, H.No. 10-4-D/457, Lohia Nagar, Opp. Teachers Colony, East Maredpalli, Secunderabad.

...Cross Objectors/Respondents No.1 to 3

AND

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation) represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

...Respondent/Appellant

2. Gyara Veeraiah, S/o. Ramalab, Age. 70 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. H.No.10-4-457/Lobia Nagar, Teachers, East Maredpally, Secunderabad.

...Respondent/R-4

(Respondent No.2 herein are added only as proforma party and no notice is necessary to them)

Counsel for the Appellant in M.A.C.M.A and Respondent No.1 in Cross Objection: SRI. THOOM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC)

Counsel for the Respondents in M.A.C.M.A: SRI D. BHASKAR YADAV

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C,M.A.No.1O4O OF 2018

and

cRoss oBJECTIONS No. 18 OF 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:

.:: .,*i*ae.'1,

M.A.C.M.A.No.104O of 2018 is preferred by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, questioning the judgment and decree, dated 9.lO.2Ol7 made in M.V.O.P.No.638 0f 2014 0n the rlle of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum Chairman, I{otor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Citv Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, the Tribunal). Chailenging the very same judgment and decree, the claimants filed cross-objections No.18 of 2O 19 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For ihe sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.19,50,000 l- for the death of one G.Solomon (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), aged about 47 years, who

Nl( 'l'.1 .r.( \t.\ ,r I l|ol l')lli \nd atui- r l,tcrroni(' l8 ol l )l()

died in a motor vt'hii'lc accident that occurred on 06.10'2014.Itisstlrtccitllirtonthetatefulday,whilethe deceased \llas goillg from Alair to Jangaon on his Hero Activa bearing 1'',\ o Al' ){\ AT 7286 arrcl when he reached Kandigadda Thancla 1)tls stage' one R T'C' bearing No'AP 2a Z 57 13 belongrng to tlre respondent' being driven by its driver in a rash ar-rd rrcgligent manner at high speed' dashed the deceased. as a result of lr'hich' the deceased fell down from his vehit'le rrr-rd died on the spot' In this connection, a case it-t Crirnc No' 148 of 2Ol4 was registered by the Alair Police trgairrst the driver ol the R'T'C' for the offence punishabic r-rrrder Section 304-A of I'P'C'. According to the clainrants, the deceased was getting an income of Rs.18,000/ per month as a Car Driver' Therefore, the claimants laid a claim for Rs' 19'50 lakhs against the resPond e nt '. R'['C '

4. Before the Triburral, the respondent-R'T'C' hled counter denying thc tnrrtrner in which the accident took place and also denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also rrontended that the compensation

r1-arsrt'!:..?'t:-!wl*,

claimed is excessivc and prayed to dismiss the claimpetition.

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, tl-re tributral came to the conclusion that the accident occurred duc to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus by its driver and awarded total compensation of Rs. 17 ,4O,OOO I - with interest @ T .5o/o per annum to be paid b-r, the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the R.T.C. frled the appeal questioning the quantum of compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimalts filed the cross-objections.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

⁷. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for tfre appellant has submitted that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased but the Tribunal did not consider the said aspect and erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus. It is further contended that though no documentary evidence was produced by the

\l!lP.-r'. .., .r{ ..1 \ ,, ! r l uat rlli \nd ( r,,- L )1, r.rron\ \1, llj ollrrlt

claimants '*'ith regard to the earnings, the Tribunal erred in fixing the inconre of tl're deceased at Rs 13,OO0/- per month. It is contcndt:d that the Tribunal erred in deducting I /4or tor'r'alcls nc:rsonal expenses of the deceased instead of ^II 3ra . F url hermore, the Tribur-ral erred in awarding Rs. 1,OO,0O0/' torvards loss of consortium' Rs.1,O0,OO0/- tou'ards loss of love and aflection and Rs.19,0OO/- tovvarcls funeral expenses and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and otherst the claimants are entitled only for Rs'70,000/- under conventional heads.

-+

8. On the other harrd, the learned counsel for the claimants, cross objcctors, has contended that considering the contents of the charge sheet, rvhich was marked as Ex.A4, the Tribunarl has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus. It is further contended by the learned counsel lor the claiman t s that as the dependants of the deceased are four in number, as per the decision of the ' ?o17 AcJ 27oo

Apex Court in Sarla Varma u. Dethi Transport Corporation2, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased should be 114.m and the Tribunal has rightly deducted the same. However, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranag Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to future prospects but the Tribunal did not award any future prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the deceased may be taken into consideration by adding future prospects for assessing loss of dependency and prayed to enhance the same.

)

,

9. As regards the contributory negligence, the Tribunal has framed Issue No.l as to whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death of the deceased due to any rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 5713 by its driver, and considering the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2, inquest report, Ex.A4, charge sheet and Ex.AS, M.V.L Report, has categorically observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus and has answered the issue in favour of the claimants , (20091 6 scc ¹²¹

MGP i MACMA No.1049 of 2018 And Cross Objections No.18 of 2019

and against the respondent. Although it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing the accident, it did not take any steps to examine the driver of the bus or any passenger of the bus who is the best person to speak in this regard. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of R.T.C. bus.

$10.$ Coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimants claimed that the deceased was aged about 47 years, working as a Car Driver with Rules APP Technology, Hitech City, Hyderabad and getting salary of Rs.18,000/per month and got marked Ex.A6, salary certificate. As per Ex.A6, salary certificate and Ex.A10, driving licence, the deceased was a professional driver. Though the claimants $Ex.A6.$ salarv certificate, they have not produced substantiated the same by examining the employer to prove the income of the deceased. However, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal has

$\mathbb{R}^{\frac{1}{2}}$

6

\I(iP,-' \l \r'\1,^ Nd lr!10 oi l0l8 rrd Crci\ ()hrec(rons No lll ol'2019

7

rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. i3,OO0/- per month. Inasmuch as the deceased rvas a skilled driver and having fixed salary and aged abovt 47 years, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranag Sethi (supra), 25%o to the established income of the deceased needs to be added towards future prospects. By adding 25o/o to the income of the deceased, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.16,250/ (Rs. 13,000/- plus Rs.3,250/- being 25yo thereof). Inasmuch as the dependants are four in number, the tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, by deducting 1/4th from Rs.16,250/-, the net monthly contribution to the family comes to Rs.I2,l87 / per month. Since the deceased was 47 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '13'. By applying the multiplier '13', the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 19,01,172l- (Rs.12,187 /- x l2 x 13). That apart, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranag Setfti (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,OOO/- under the conventional heads, but not Rs.2,19,000/- as was awarded

\t(,l,.r \1 ,( \1.\ \ti L ,i ..1 rr)lI (' ,i! ( )btJ.llinr\ ,, lS.l lOtg

-:------'-

8

by the tribunal. Thus, in :r11, the claimants are entitled for the total compensation ol Rs. 19,7a,V2l-

i 1. At this stage, the icarned Standing Counsel for the R.T.C. submits that tl-re claimants claimed only a sum of Rs. 19,50,000/ as compensation and the quantum ol compensatron which is rrow ar,r,arded would go beyond the claim madc which is impcrmissible under law.

12. Ir-r view of the .Iudgments of the Apex Court in Laxman @) Laxman Mouryq. Vs. Divisional Manage1 Oriental Insurantce Compang Llmited and anothers and Nagappa I/s. Guntdagal Singhe the claimants arc entitled to get just compensation even if it is more than the amount what was clatmed bv the claimants.

13. In the result, u,hile dismissing the M.A.C.M.A. No.1040 of 2018 hled by the R.T.C., the cross objections filed by the claimants are allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 17,a0,000/- to Rs.l9,78,1721 -. The enhanced amount shall be

³ (2o11) 10 scc 7s6

^. 2oo3 AcJ 12 (sc)

NGP 1 MACMA No.1040 of 2018 And Cross Objections No 18 of 2019

apportioned between the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Time to deposit the amount is two months. However, the claimants are directed to pay deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

Sd/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To. 1. The XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad. (with records)

• 2. One CC to SRI. THOOM SRINIVAS, (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate [OPUC]
• 3. One CC to SRI. D, BHASKAR YADAV, Advocate [OPUC]
• 4. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/01/2023

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 1040 OF 2018 AND CROSS OBJECTION No.18 OF 2019

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A

AND

CROSS-OBJECTION IS ALLOWED

WITHOUT COSTS

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 1040 OF 2018 AND CROSS OBJECTION No.18 OF 2019

Between:

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

...Appellant/Respondent

AND

• 1. Gyara Sunitha Devi, W/o. Late Soloman, aged 40 years, Occ. Household, R/o. 10-4-D/457, Lohianagar, Opp. Teacher Colony, East Marredpalli, Secunderabad.
• 2. Gyara Varun Raj, S/o. Late Soloman, aged 20 years, Occ. Student, (minor), represented by his next friend and Natural mother i.e. first Respondent, R/o.10-4-D/457, Lohianagar, Opp. Teacher Colony, East Marredpalli, Secunderabad. (R2 declared as major and discharging the guardianship of the R1 vide Court<br>Order dated. 01.05.2019 in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in M.A.C.M.A 1040 of 2018)
• 3. Gyara Elina, W/o. Veeraiah, aged 65 years, Occ. Household, R/o. 10-4-D/457, Lohianagar, Opp. Teacher Colony, East Marredpalli, Secunderabad.
• 4. Gyara Veeraiah, S/o. Ramaiah, aged 70 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. 10-4-D/457. Lohianagar, Opp. Teacher Colony, East Marredpalli, Secunderabad.

...Respondents/Petitioners

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of M.V. Act and Memorandum of Cross Objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No.638 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad.

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of SRI. THOOM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC), Counsel for the

Appellant in M.A.C.M.A and Respondent No.1 in Cross Objection and SRI D. BHASKAR YADAV, Counsel for the Respondents in M.A.C.M.A

This Court doth Judgment and Decree as follows:-

• 1. That the MACMA No. 1040 of 2018 filed by the R.T.C., be and hereby is dismissed; and
• 2. The Cross-Objections filed by the Claimants be and hereby are allowed, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.17,40,000/- to Rs. 19,78,172/-.
• 3. That the enhanced amount shall be and hereby be apportioned between the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal.
• 4. That the enhanced compensation shall be and hereby carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, and time to deposit the amount is two months.
• 5. That the Claimants be and hereby are directed to pay deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount; and
• 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

Sd/-N.SRIHARI

• 1. The XXVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad.
• 2. Two CD Copies

To,

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/01/2023

I

COMMON DECREE

M.A.C.M.A.NO: 1040 OF 2018 AND CROSS OBJECTION No.18 OF 2019

DISMISSING THE M.A.C.M.A

AND

CROSS.OBJECTION IS ALLOWED

WITHOUT COSTS

a &!o 2A "3