M/s. B. Madhavi, Advocate, rep v. Brahmaiah Ghowdary

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. K.SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate Counset for the Respondents: M/s. B. Madhavi, Advocate, rep. V. Brahmaiah Ghowdary, Advocate The Court made the following: JUDGMENT l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSIITG RAO T{AI\ DIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.19 6 ot2O2O JUIXIMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. is frled under Section 173 rf the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appeltant/R'T'C' rgainst the judgment and decree, dated 27 'C,6 '2025 passed in M.V.O.P.No.S 4l of 2Ol7 on the file of the Motor Acc dent Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional District Judge, Khammam ' (hereinafter referred to "IribunalJ, wherein the lear red Tribunal has awarded ar anount of Rs'10,52,8O0/- as agair tst the claim of the claimants at Rs.15,00,000/-.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties ir this appeal hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tril> rnal'

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the claima rts hled the above claim-petition for grant of comJx nsation of RS.15,OO,OOO/- for the death of one Kilari Nagara r L (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a r totor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.O2.2OL2 ' lt is st Lted that on 26.02.2012, while the deceased was crossing t-ht: R & B road' the driver of the R.T.C' bus bearing No'AP 29 Z 2\l t2 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the de<:' ased, due to 2 NNR, J Macma-196_2O2O which the deceased feII down on the road and sustained fatal injuries on the vital organs of the body and died on tire spot. Basing on a complaint, the Police, Kodada Town, registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2Ol2 against the driver of the RTC bus, for tJ.e offence punishable under Section 3O4-A of I.p.C. It is further stated that the deceased was aged about 48 years at tJre time of the accident and used to earn Rs.2O,OOO/- per month as Tanker Driver and on account of t]le death of deceased, the claimants , who have depended on the income of the deceased, have lost their source of income. Hence, they filed the claim- petition against the respondent, who, being the owner of the said R.T.C. bus is liable to pay the compensation.

4. The respondent frled counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition such as the manner in which the accident took place, age, income and avocation of the deceased. tt is specifrcally denied that tltere was no rash and negligent driving on the part of tl.e driver of the RTC bus and the deceased himself was responsible for the accident. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and excessive. It is further contended that t]le claimants are not entitled to the interest as claimed in the claim-petition since 7 3 NNR, J ) lacrna -1962020 the claim-petition was filed five years after t -re accident' Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the lear: ted Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the deceased Kilari Naga r ju died on 26.O2.2OL2 while proceeding on R & B Roatl near Krishna Priya Talkies at Kodad Town due to hitting ol APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 29 Z9O2 diven by its drivr:: in rash and negligent manner?

2. Whether the claim-petitioner Nos.l to 5 rle entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from wh' m?

3. To what relieP

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claima ets, the wife of the deceased was examined as P'W. 1 and got rr arked Exs'Al to A5. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.l was exz mined but no documentary evidence was produced. 7 . After considering the contents of the < laim-petition, counter frled by the respondent and evaluatin6; the oral and documentary evidence produced by both tht' partie's, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus ar I allowed the M.V.O.P in part and granted compensation of ll ;. 10,52'800/- 4 IINR, J Macma-196-2020 along with interest at 9o/o per annum from the date of petition till date of realization payable by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the Road Transport Corporalion filed the present appeal on the following grounds:- (i) that the learned Tribunal without considering the fact that there is a negligence on the part of the deceased himself as he crossed the road from right side to left side without observing the tralfic on the road and also jumped tJle railing and came infront of the bus and fell down on the road, due to which he succumbed to injuries. It is further contended that the said accident was happened in a fraction of seconds as driver of the bus has no time to stop the bus and therefore, there was no negligence on ttre part of the driver of the bus. (ii) that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the sole evidence of P.W.l, who is admittedly not an eye witness to the accident and Ex.AS, had erroneously held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus. Further, the leamed Tribunal ought to have taken the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at 50% and the notional income which is taken by the learned Tribunal is without any basis and the compensation awarded by the 5 NNR, J Macma I96_2020 Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive and prayec to allow the appeal.

8. Having heard Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, lea;: Led Standing Counsel for the appellant and Ms.B.Madhavi, k:r rned counsel representing Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, lezr ned counsel appearing for the respondent and perusa.l of t:r: material on record, the point that arises for consideration bef ,re this Court is whether ttre appellant has made out any grour.( s for allowing the appeal as prayed for.

9. Polnt:- The main grievance of the learned Standir-r ; Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal c,r .ght to have dismissed the claim-petition or ought to he r e taken the contributory negligence on the part of the de,: :ased on the ground that as per the contentions of the < laimants t]re deceased himself had jumped the railing while cro, sing the road from left side to right side and suddenly came in f r )nt of the bus due to which the driver of the bus could not appl'i the brakes to stop the bus and therefore, there is no negligenc€ rn the part of the driver of the said bus. karned Standing Cc unsel further contended that the only evidence placed before tl e Tribunal is 5 NNR, J Macma-196-2O2O P.W.l, who is wife of the deceased and admittedly she is not an eye rvitness to the accident. He also contended that the learned Tribunal did not consider the fact that ttre case registered against the driver of the bus was ended in acquittal and that the acquittal of the said case would goes to show that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. lO. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the findings given by tJle learned Tribunal and she pointed out that the learned Tribunal having taken into consideration of the fact that there was no pleading from the appellant that the said accident occurred due to sudden jumping of the railing by the deceased for crossing the road from left side to side. lcarned counsel also pointed out that a crime was registered against the driver of the bus and after due investigation only Ex.A5-charge sheet was frled by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodada Town Police Station, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held ttrat the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. I 1. A perusal of the material on record would show that except tJre evidence of R.W. I no other evidence was placed by the respo ndent either before the Tribunal or before this Court to 7 NNR, J vta.cma.196 2O2O show that there was railing on the road and he deceased jumped the railing and suddenly came infront of tt e bus. In the absence of any evidence placed to that effect and rasing on the evidence of P.W. I and Ex.AS, the learned Tribun Ll has rightly held that there was negligence on the part of tht driver of the bus. Apart from that, the acquittat in criminal , ase does not make any impact in claiming the compensation r nder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, -his Court do not see any error committed by the Tribunal in gi lng a Iinding that the accident occurred due to the rash and ntl ligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus. 12- The other ground urged by the learned Star Cing Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal ,r rght to have taken tJle future prospects at 25%o though the r eceased was aged 5O years but the Tribunal has taken the fut rre prospects at 4Oo/o.

13. As seen from the record, the deceased was a 1ed about 50 years and the learned Tribunal ought to have tal< )n the future prospects at 25o/o in view of the judgment of the {on'ble Apex Court in National Insuralr,cc Corrynng Linitec Vs. Pranog 8 NNR, J Macma_196-2O20 Sethl and. ot tersr. Therefore, this Court inclined to reassess the compensation under the head of loss of dependency by taking the future prospects at 25oh. Admittedly, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,0OOl- W, month. Apart from the same, the claimants are also entitled to addition of 25o/o towards future prospects as stated supra. ThereJore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,50O/- (Rs.6,O0O/- + Rs.1,SOO/-) 'and annual income would be Rs.7,5O0/- x 12 = Rs.90,000/-. From this, 1/4tr is to be deducted towards living arrd personal expenses of the deceased following Sqrla Venna a. Delhl Transport Corporation2 as the claimants are hve in number. After deducting l/4th amount towards the personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.67,5O0/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 48 years, the appropriate multiplier for tJle age group 46 to 50 is '13' as per Clause 4 of the Schedule prescribed by ttre decision reported in Sarla Verma. a. Irelht Transport CotTtoratloa (2 atprQ. Adopting multiplier '13', the total loss of dependenry would be Rs.67,500/- x 13 : Rs.8,77,50O/-. Apart from the above, the 12017 ACJ 27OO _/ 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (Se) ,-----"1 \_ 9 NNR, J Macma_196 2O2O claimants are also entifled to an amount of tl .7O,0OO/- as awarded by tJle Tribunal under conventional hearll . Thus, in aII the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,47,5O0/-.

14. The other contention raised by the lear red Standing Counsel for the appella-nt is that the learned lribunal has awarded interest at 9Yo per annum, which is , xcessive and exorbitant, and it was not based on any sound rer ions and that the interest may be reduced to 6%oP.A.

15. As per the decision of the Apex Court ir: RaJesh and others v. RaJbir Singh and others3 the claimarir s are entitled to interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum on tJre compensatic 1 awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realizal cn,. Hence, the interest granted by the Tribunal @ 9o/o ]t:r annum is reduced to 7 .SVo per annum. Accordingly, the point is answered to the extent indicated above.

16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is pa tly allowed, reducing the compensation from Rs. 1O I 2,BOO / - Rs.9,47,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5(tt p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition til. the date of 3 2013 ACJ 14O3 = 2O13 (4) ALT 35 \ 10 NNR, J Macr:La_196_2O2O 11 realization. The appellant is directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. . The compensation amount shall be apportioned among tJle respondents/claimants in the sarne manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. L7. Miscellaneous petitions, if aly are pending, shall stand closed SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional District Judge at Khammam. (With records, if any)

2. One CC to SRl. K. Srinivasa Rao Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. B. Madhavi, Advocate.[OPUCt 4. One CC to SRl. V. Brahmaiah Chowdary Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies KH/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:2&IO7l2O2S ( J ) ) Lll- 1 STA rF tI q 0E'i ?ffi 't, -.:..1.'DF q. .,lf 'l' . Z 6) ,,/ ,, JUDGMENT+DECREE [2 DRAFTSI MACMA.No.t96 ot 2020 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE MACTTIA WTHOUT COSTS. {-Prc} K* l l I I I t 3443l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND T\^/ENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACC]DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 196 OF 2020 Between: The Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (presently at Pandit Nehru Bus station, Vijayawada, Krishna District) ...Appellant AND

7. Kilari Sharada, Wo. Nagaraju, Age 44 years, Occ House hold, Rl/o. H.No.3-'l- 114, Chaitanya Nagar, near Bypass Road, Khammam

8. Kilari Murali Mohan, S/o. Nagaraju, Age 26 years, Occ Student, R/o. H.No.3- 1-1'14, Chaitanya Nagar, near Bypass Road, Khammam

9. Kilari Rajashekar, S/o. Nagaraju, Age22years, Occ Student, Ri/o. H.No.3-1- 114, Chaitanya Nagar, near Bypass Road, Khammam l0.Kilari Rajashekar, S/o. Nagaraju, Age 22 years, Occ Student, R/o. H.No.3-1- 114, Chaitanya Nagar, near Bypass Road, Khammam l1.Kilari Laxmi Deepika, D/o. Nagaraju, Age 19 years, Occ Student, R"/o. H.No.3- 1-114, Chaitanya Nagar, near Bypass Road, Khammam

12. Kilari Nasaramrna @ Narsamma, Wo. Challaiah, Age 65 years, Occ Nil, R/o. H.No.3-1-114, Chaitanya Nagar, near Bypass Road, Khammam ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.f.lo. 54112017 , dated. 271ffi12019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge at Khammam. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds ofappeal, the Judgrnent and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of M/s. B. Madhavi, Advocate, rep. V. Brahmaiah Chowdary,Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and none appeared for the respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal b,: and hereby is partly allowed;

2. That one compensation amount reducing fronr Rs.9,47,500/- with the interest at the rate ot 7.5o/op.. Rs.10,52,800/- to r. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realizatior 3. That the appellant be and hereby directed to deposit ther with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amct if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a cop 4. That the compensation amount shall be app respoMents/claimnants in the same manner and ratir ;aid amount together nt already deposited, y of this judgment; rinted among the as ordered by the tribunal;

5. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of th,: Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY" D/- A.V.S. PRASAD REGISTRAR s t)ii \*"r,on oFFrcER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum. I Additional District Judge at Khammam. (With records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies KH/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:281071?025 DECREE MAGMA.No.196 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS. L{ .oPqOA w.- i6S)d