Bench v. R Latha & Ors.

Judgment

-

1. The present appeal is preferred by APSRTC, questioning the order dated 16.11.2018 in MVOP No.39 of 2016, on the file of II Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were mentioned in claim petition.

3. The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- on account of the death of Ravuri Durga Maleswara Rao, who died in the accident that occurred on 06.10.2014, in which the bus belonging to APSRTC bearing registration No.AP05Z 0149 was involved.

4. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the children and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased. It is the case of the petitioners that on 06.10.2014, the deceased was returning to Vijayawada with load of cement bags, during transit lorry driven by the deceased was intercepted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector at Garikapadu check 3 post so as to verify the documents. While the deceased was crossing the road, the 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner, at high speed and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down on the divider and sustained head injury and fell unconscious. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Jaggaiadhpet and later he was shifted to VINS Hospital, Vijayawada. On 07.10.2014 at about 09:30 am, the deceased succumbed to injuries.

5. It was further stated that the petitioners spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the treatment of the deceased in the hospital referred to herein above. On reporting the accident, the police registered a case in Crime No.257 of 2014 under Section 337 IPC, on the file of Chillakallu Police Station. Later the said crime was investigated into and charge sheet was filed against the 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus.

6. It was further averred in the claim petition that the deceased was aged 36 years as on the date of accident and he was hale and healthy. It was further stated that the deceased as a lorry driver used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and the same was being contributed to the welfare of the family. In view of the sudden demise of Ravuri Durga Maleswara Rao, the petitioners 4 lost their only source of income, thereby they have approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-, against the respondents.

7. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 were set ex-parte and the 3rd respondent alone contested the claim petition. It was the case of the 3rd respondent that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was further stated that respondent No.1/driver of the bus was experienced and he was vigilant while driving the bus, inter alia the 3rd respondent denied the age and income of the deceased. It was further stated that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the lorry.

8. In order to prove the case on hand, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. One Sri Vallala Sanjay Kumar, eye witnesses to the accident was examined as PW-2. Apart from the same, the petitioners also marked documentary evidence in Ex.A1 to A6. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent examined the driver of RTC bus as RW-1, no documents were placed on record on its behalf. After trial, the Tribunal by impugned order allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition 5 till the date of payment. Questioning the order passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by APSRTC.

9. Heard Sri Penumala Venkata Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for respondent No.4. As the matter is pending adjudication since 2019, the same is taken up for hearing.

10. Perused the material available on record.

11. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. In order to prove the same, the driver of the offending bus was examined as RW-1. A perusal of the evidence of RW-1 would show that while crossing the road, the deceased did not take minimum care and did not follow the traffic rules. However, during the cross examination RW-1 admitted that the accident was occurred on four way road, which is a highway. He further admitted that, the case which was registered against him was investigated into and charge sheet was filed in CC No.664 of 2014. He further admitted that he was supposed to take the injured to the hospital and to give complaint to the police station immediately. But in the case on hand he did not do so. On the other hand, the petitioners have examined one Sri Vallala 6 Sanjay Kumar, who was the eye witness to the accident as PW-2. A perusal of the evidence of PW-2 would show that the offending vehicle was driven in rash and negligence manner at high speed and dashed the deceased.

12. Further, during the course of cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that there was negligence on the part of the deceased. Be that as it may, in order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, copy of the FIR in Crime No.257 of 2015, on the file of Chillakalu Police Station, which was marked as Ex.A1 was filed. A perusal of the contents of the report given to the police would establish that there was negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/driver of offending bus. A careful consideration of the evidence on record, especially the evidence of PW-2, coupled with the charge sheet filed against the respondent No.1 would leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending bus. In such circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected.

13. The counsel for the appellant would also submit that the Tribunal erred in allowing the claim of the petitioners 7 inasmuch as, the Tribunal without there being any material available on record, had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month. In order to substantiate its contention, the 3rd respondent/appellant neither adduced any oral evidence nor marked any documentary evidence. Per contra, the petitioners have categorically stated in the claim petition that the deceased was driver by avocation and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Further the wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1, who categorically stated in her chief-examination affidavit, reiterating the averments made in the claim petition. Further, she also filed a copy of the driving license of the deceased and the same was marked as Ex.A6.

14. As already supra, though respondents/appellants disputed the income of the deceased, nothing is placed on record in order to disprove the evidence of petitioners. On taking into consideration of the averments made in the claim petition, the evidence of PW-1, coupled with Ex.A6, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the deceased was a lorry driver and earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month.

15. In this context, it is pertinent to place on record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Parminder Singh v. New 8 India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Others” 1 had categorically held that, while computing the quantum of compensation, the notional income can be fixed based on the evidence available on record including the evidence filed by the employer/the parties to the case. While considering the evidence adduced by the employee, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had fixed the income of the deceased therein accordingly.

16. Coming to the case on hand, it is evident from the record that the deceased met with the accident while he was showing certain documents to the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Apart from the same, copy of the driving license of the deceased was marked as Ex.A6. On consideration of all these aspects, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, as already observed supra, the respondents miserably failed to disprove the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition by awarding the compensation of Rs.11,0,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

17. A perusal of the order under challenge would reveal that while computing the compensation that was to be received 1 2019 (7) SCC 217 9 the claimants, the Tribunal had arrived at a sum of Rs.20,25,000/-. Further it was restricted to Rs.11,00,00/- inasmuch as the petitioner had claimed only Rs.11,00,000/- in the claim petition. This observation of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. In this context, it is pertinent to note the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court had time and again held that just compensation has to be paid to the victims/claimants or legal heirs of the victims.

18. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ramla & others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited” 2 had categorically observed that while dealing the cases especially arising under beneficial legislation, it is the bounden duty of the Court to grant just compensation and the Courts are empowered to grant more compensation than the claim made by the claimants, if they are otherwise entitled to. Following this judgment, it can be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law.

19. Further, the Apex Court also made clear that even in the absence of any appeal filed by the claimants, the Courts are 2 (2019) 2 SCC 192 10 empower to enhance the compensation, so as to meet the ends justice. Further, though the Tribunal had arrived at Rs.20,25,000/- as compensation, the same is also not in consonance with the guidelines enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others3”.

20. In the circumstances, this Court is undertaking the exercise of computing the compensation that is to be received by the petitioners. Accordingly, the compensation is computed as under:- S.No. Description of the Head

4. 5.

7. 8. Net Annual Income Future prospects at the age of 36 years Total Income Deduction towards personal expenditure (i.e., 1/4th) Total Loss of Dependency Multiplier of 15 for the age of 36 years Conventional heads Loss of consortium (4 claimants) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total Compensation 3 AIR 2017 SC 5157 Amount entitled in Rupees Rs.15,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,80,000/- Rs.72,000/- (i.e, 40% of the income) Rs.2,52,200/- Rs.63,000/- Rs.1,89,000/- Rs.28,35,000/- (1,89,000 x 15) Rs.1,60,000/- = (Rs.40,000 x 4) Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.30,25,000/- 11

21. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is dismissed. However, the compensation is enhanced Rs.11,00,000/- to Rs.30,25,000/- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of payment.

22. Further the appellant/APSRTC is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.30,25,000/- together with interest @

7.5% per month from the date of petition till the date of payment within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Court.

23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by APSRTC dismissed, however the compensation is enhanced Rs.11,00,00/- to Rs.30,25,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs.

24. The claimants are directed to pay the Court fee for the enhanced part of the compensation before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

07.08.2026 DR ____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR 12 118 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MACMA No.195 of 2019 Date: 07.08.2026 U DR