High Court · 2025

Judgment

): Both these appeals arise out of challenge made to the order dated 25.02.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No.402 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, one preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation and the other by the AP State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘APSRTC’), questioning the award of compensation. Hence, both appeals are disposed of by common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. (a) M.V.O.P. was instituted by the parents, wife and minor children of deceased Kothakota Jaya Bharath Reddy claiming compensation on account of death caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing registration No.AP 29Z 2435 2 RNT, J & CGR, J MACMA Nos.1995 & 2044 of 2016 belonging to APSRTC. It is claimed that on 12.12.2012, while the deceased and his friend namely Jangam Chandrasekhar were proceeding in a car bearing registration No.AP 02AF 8008 from Narpala to Anantapur, bus belonging to APSRTC came in opposite direction in high speed and dashed the car, resulting in severe injuries to both passengers in the car. The deceased was initially treated at Sreenivasa Hospital, Anantapur and later on, as per the advise of the doctors shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital at Bangalore. He was treated as inpatient from 13.12.2012 to 19.02.2013 and later on, shifted to I-AIM (Institute of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine), Health Care Center, Bangalore, where he was treated from

19.02.2013 to 02.03.2013 and again, he was shifted back to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore, on 02.03.2013. While undergoing treatment there, he succumbed on 05.03.2013. (b) It is stated that the deceased was aged 39 years and he was having earnings of ₹8,00,000/- per annum as agricultural income, besides also earning around ₹2,00,000/- per annum on real estate business. It is also stated the claimants had incurred expenditure of Rs.19,63,616/- towards medical treatment at 3 RNT, J & CGR, J MACMA Nos.1995 & 2044 of 2016 aforesaid hospitals, besides incurring additional amounts transport, lodging, boarding of attendants and miscellaneous expenses. In all, a claim was laid for ₹60,00,000/- including the statutory claims towards loss of consortium. (c) The respondent filed counter denying the allegations in the claim petition inter alia contending that the accident occurred not because of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus but rather the deceased who was driving the car drove negligently and therefore, no liability can be fastened on the Corporation. Further, the income and occupation of the deceased was disputed and denied. (d) To prove the claim, the claimants have got examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A17 and Exs.C1 and C2 and on the other hand, the respondent has got examined R.W.1, the driver of the bus and no documents were marked. (e) The Tribunal basing on the pleadings of both parties, framed the following issues: 4 RNT, J & CGR, J MACMA Nos.1995 & 2044 of 2016 “1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus bearing registration No.AP 29Z 2435?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation of ₹60,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered?

3. To what relief?” (f) On appreciation of evidence on record, so far as issue no.1, the Tribunal found that the bus which was coming in the opposite direction proceeding from Anantapur to Kadapa had dashed the car in which deceased was proceeding towards Anantapur and further that the incident had occurred only because of rash and negligent driving of bus by the driver resulting in severe injuries and death of

the deceased. The Tribunal considering Ex.A1 - FIR, Ex.A2 – inquest report, Ex.A3 – post mortem examination report, Ex.A4 – rough sketch of scene of offence, Ex.A5 – preliminary charge sheet and Ex.A6 – final charge sheet come to the above conclusion. It has also considered evidence of R.W.1, who was the driver of bus and having regard to his inconsistent stands in chief and cross, did not give much credence to the same. Coming to issues 2 and 3, 5 RNT, J & CGR, J MACMA Nos.1995 & 2044 of 2016 which relate to the quantum of compensation, though claimants have set up that deceased was having agricultural income and real estate income, as the same could not be established, the Tribunal therefore considered a notional income of ₹200/- per day and ₹6,000/- per month and ₹72,000/- per annum. Considering the age of deceased as 39 years, in terms of Ex.A7 - Secondary School Certificate, it has granted future prospects at the rate of 50% and has deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses. It has applied multiplier of 15 and assessed the income of the deceased as ₹81,000/- per annum and the total income as ₹12,15,000/-. Coming to the medical expenses, considering Exs.A10, A12 and A14, which are medical bills and A11 which is discharge summary, coupled with evidence of P.W.4, who is Manager of Columbia Asia Hospital, the Tribunal allowed the medical expenses for ₹19,63,616/- and thereby, total compensation of ₹32,38,620/- was awarded and apportioned amongst the claimants. (g) The claimants have preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.1995 of 2016 seeking enhancement of compensation as they were dissatisfied with compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Corporation 6 RNT, J & CGR, J MACMA Nos.1995 & 2044 of 2016 preferred M.A.C.M.A. No.2044 of 2016 challenging compensation awarded to be excessive.

4. Heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for APSRTC.

5. Learned counsel for APSRTC while commencing arguments in MACMA No.2044 of 2016, without going to the aspect of liability, confining the challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded mainly contended that the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as ₹200/- per day despite no evidence being placed on record to prove that neither the deceased was having agricultural income nor undertaking agricultural activity, and rather even assuming that he was cultivating the lands, will be entitled only for supervisory charges utmost can be considered as ₹1000/- per month. In support of said submission, reliance is placed on Sannala Bhaskar Reddy v. M.Sreenivasulu and another1. Secondly, it is contended that the Tribunal had granted future prospects at the rate of 50% considering the age of deceased as 39 years, rather in view of the guidelines provided in National 1 2009 (4) ALT 323 7 RNT, J & CGR, J MACMA Nos.1995 & 2044 of 2016 Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others2, future prospects are to be allowed only at the rate of 40%. Coming to the medical expenses, learned counsel vehemently contended that the order of the Tribunal suffers from perversity inasmuch as the medical expenses claimed under Exs.A10, A13 and A14 was allowed in toto without even examination of the concerned doctor who has treated the deceased, therefore, the same should be disallowed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that as the Corporation has not disputed the occurrence of accident and death and having regard to the nature of burden of proof that is required to be discharged in cases of claims for compensation under MV Act, being on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation. He also contends that the income assessed by the Tribunal was merely a notional income and not that of either income from agriculture or agricultural undertaking, therefore, question of considering supervisory charges for undertaking such activity does not arise. The income considered by the Tribunal since 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 8 RNT, J & CGR, J MACMA Nos.1995 & 2044 of 2016 is dehorse the agricultural activity, the judgment on which reliance is placed in this regard has no application. He further contended that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence in relation to medical expenses i.e., Exs.A10 to A14 and also evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, in particular, Manager of Columbia Asia Hospital, and allowed such expenses which is based on sound application of mind and does not call for any interference. He also contended that in so far as the statutory benefits such as conventional heads, the Tribunal has not granted the same, which the claimants are entitled in law, in support of which, reliance is sought to be placed on Pranay Sethi’s case (supra 2). Lastly, he contends that the Tribunal has granted interest @7.5% per annum, which is meager and in view of various recent judgments of Apex Court, the claimants are entitled for interest @9% per annum.

7. Considered the rival submissions made by both parties and perused the record. The following points arise for our consideration: “1. Whether the Tribunal has awarded just and compensation to the claimants/respondents in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties? 9 RNT, J & CGR, J MACMA Nos.1995 & 2044 of 2016

2. Whether the interest @7.5% is reasonable?

3. To what relief?”

8. Point No.1:- Just and fair compensation: It is settled law that the claimants are entitled for just and fair compensation and that endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the fact the claimants had not preferred any appeal for enhancement or filed cross objection in the appeal filed by either insurance company or owner. We had summed up the law on this aspect recently in The Divisional Manager, The New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Emani Venkata Archana and four others3, by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.Jayasree v. Cholamandalam Ms.General Insurance Company Limited4, Surekha v. Santosh5, Meena Pawala v. Ashraf Ali6 and Smt.Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod (Supra 5). As the purport of compensation under Section 166 of the Act is to award just and fair reasonable