1' The Andhra pradesh state Road-Transport corporation v. No.l24 of

RI SRINIV Counsel for the A No.l24 of 2020 and S No.1 in CROSS 1o12O2O SRt M VIJAY REDDY The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.124 of 2O2O & X-OBJ.No. 11 of 2O2O COMMON JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A.No.124 of 2O2O is filed by the Road Transport Corporation and Cross Objections are filed by the claimants against the Award and decree, dated 21.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.23O of 2Ol7 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties ',r'ill be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants, r,vho are the parents of one Chiragani Satheesh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased'), have filed a claim-petition flor grant of compensation of Rs.10,00,000 /- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.12.2016. It is stated that on 27.L2.2O16, u,hile rhe deceased was proceedinS motorcycle bearing No.TS 08 _on5Ts i : ! I 2 NNR, J Macma-124-2O2O and' X OBJ.LI-2O2O EM 1078 from Dilsukhnagar to L.B.Nagar and when he reached opposite to D.Mart at L.B.Nagar, the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 37 Z OO97 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from his backside, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

4. Basing on a complaint, the Police, L.B.Nagar, registered a case in Crime No.145O of 2016 against the driver of the RTC bus, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P-C.

5. It is further stated that the deceased was aged about 2o years at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.1O,OOO/- per month as motorcycle rnechanic and on account of the death of the 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 responclents, who being the owners of the said R.T.C. bus are liable to pa-v the compensation.

6. The respondents filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition such as the manner in which the accident took place, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is specifically stated that on 27 -12-2016 at 9:30 t 3 NNR, J Macma-124_2O2O and X OBJ.r 1_2O2O p.m. while the driver of the bus was proceeding from K.P.H.B.Colony to Eluru and reached Kothapeta near L.B.Nagar, the police came and stopped the bus by saying that the driver of the bus caused accident near D-Mart, Dilsukhnagar and asked the driver to come to p.s. though the driver of the bus denied the said allegations. Therefore, it is specifically contended that no accident was occurred on that date and the respondents are not liable to pay the compensation. 7 - Basing on the above pleadings, the learned rribunal framed the following issues:- l ' whether the preaded accident had occurred resulting in death of deceased chirangani satheesh due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No.A p 3T Z OO97 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an!, compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief.2 8' Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, p.ws. r and 2 were examined and Exs.Al E=I7 were marked. On 4 NNR, J Macma-124-2O2O and X OBJ. 1l-12O2O behatf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentar5r evidence was adduced. g. After considering the contents of the claim-petition, counter filed by the respondents and evaluating the oral and d.ocumentary evidence produced by the claimartts, the Tribunat held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus and allowed the M.V.O.PinpartandgrantedcompensationofRs'7'2O'4OOl- together with costs and interest at 7 '5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realiza.tion payable by the respondents jointl-y and severally'

10. Being aggrieved by the said quantum of compensation and liabilitl', the present appeal is filed by the Road Transport Corporation on the following grounds:- (i) that the Tribunal erred in awarding excess and exorbitant amount without following the principles and procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act' 1988' (ii) that the Tribunal faited to see that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus and on the \) 5 NNR, J Macne-124_2O2O and X OBJ. ll 2O2O otherhand no accident was occurred to the RTC bus and the motorcycle of the deceased. (iii) that the claimants filed the claim-petition without impleading the owner and insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was proceeding at the time of accident and as such, the learned rribunal ought to have dismissed the claim- petition on the sole ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. (iv) that no evidence is placed by the craimants to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negrigent driving of the driver of the bus. (v) the rearned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,5Oo/_ per month without any basis and pra-ved to allow the appeal. I l. The claimants filed the cross_objections contending that the though the deceased w?s r earning Rs.10,00O/_ per month as mororcycre mechanic but the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- without considering Ex.AZ-Tlary certificate. Therefi rrrsrcrOf€, prayed tO \ 44, 6 NNR, J Macma_I24. -2O2O and X OBJ. LL 2O2O enhance the compensation by taking the income at Rs. 10,000 / - per month. L2. Having heard Ms.Mercy Vrjaya, learned counsel representing Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri M.Vrjay Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants and perusal of the material on record, the following points that arose for consideration. (1) Whether the appellants have made or'rt any gror'r'nd to interfere with the findings and award passed by the learned Tribunal? (2) Whether the claimants/cross-objectors for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? are entitled l3.Point Nos'l and 2:- The main grievance of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants is that without there being any proof of evidence to show that there \ilas negligence on the part of the dfiver of the bus' the \earned Tribunal has imposed ttre t t , !i i t I i a i t i :, It 7 NNR, J Macma-124-2O2O and. X OBJ. 1L 2O2O responsibility on the driver of the bus and also the liability on the appellants.

14. As seen from the record, the claimants have examined P.w.2-eye witness to the accident and he was specificalry stated in his evidence that he is working as an optician at Basava opticals, L.B.Nagar and on 27.L2.2oL6 he observed that one person was riding the Motorcycle bearing No.TS 0g EM 1078 from Dilsukhnagar towards L.B.Nagar sid.e and was crossing his optical shop, one RTC bus bearing No.Ap 3z z oo97, which was proceeding in the sarne direction, driven by its d.river in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcyclist, due to which the motorcyclist fell down and died on the spot.

15. A perusal of the cross-examination of p.W.2, nothing has been elicited and the learned rribunal, having believed the evidence of P.w.2 and also considering the entire crime record, had rightly came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that there is 8 NNR, J Macma-124-2O2O and X OBJ.II-2O2O nothing to interfere in the findings given by the learned Tribunal \Mith regard to the manner of the accident'

16. lnsofar aS the quantum of compensation, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal ought not to have taken the income at Rs.4,50O /- per month, whereas in contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants has argued and contended that the entire crime record and the material placed before the Court would show that the deceased was working as bike mechanic prior to the accident and was earning Rs.1O,OO0/- per month and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income at Rs.1O,OOO/- per month but the learned Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.4,5OO/- per month, which appears to be meagre.

17. In order to prove the income of the cleceased, the claimants filed Ex.A7-salary certificate issued by the Proprietor of Sai Durga Bike Point, Angali Raju, certifying that the deceased worked as Mechanic in their shop and he paid Rs.10,OO0/-permonth'Thoughtheclaimantsdidnot examine the said Angli Raju, Proprietor of the Bike Point, but . l: :: -: ; i $ 6 x I "*t * 'L t: ! n ti! 9 NNR, J Macme_124_2O2O and X OBJ.l l_2O2O even as per the proceedings of the District collector/ Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, dated 22.O8.2OLT, the Minimum Wages in Municipal Area was Rs.348/- per day taking the sarne for consideration and since the accident occurred o* 27.12.2016, this court incrined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.9,OOO/- per month by considering that Rs.3oo/- per day as his daily wage. Apart from the same, the claimants are also entitled to addition of 4o%o of the actual income towards future prospects as per the decision of the Honble Apex court in National rnsurance compang Llmited. us. pranag sethi qnd, oiltersl. Therefore, the monthry income of the deceased cor,nes to Rs.12,60O/- (Rs.9,OOO/- + Rs.3,60O/-) and annual income would be Rs. 12,600/- x 12 = Rs. ,,SI,2OO/_. From this, 50% is to be deducted towards living and personar expenses of the deceased fo,owing sq.rrq. verrna u- Dethi Transpott cotTtoration2 as the deceased was bachelor at the time of the accident. After deductin g 500/o amount towards the personar and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be: Rs.75,6oo/- per annum. Since the age of the | 20L7 ACJ 2700 2 2oog Ac.J 1298 (sc, 10 NNR, J Macrna_L24 _.2O2O and X OBJ. l L _2O2O deceased at the time of the accident \,r/as 22 years, the appropriate multiplier for the age group 2l to 25 is '18'as per Clause 4 of the Schedule prescribed by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Sorla Verrnq. a. Delhi Transport CorTtoration (2 supra). Adopting multiplier '18', the total Ioss of dependency would be Rs.75,600/- x 18 : Rs.13,60,800/-. Apart from the above, under conventional head.s the claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate as per the judgment of the Apex Court inPranagsethi'sccse(lsupra)'Further'theclaimants being the parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs'48'4O0/- eachtowardslilialconsortiumaSpertlrejuclgmentofthe Honble Apex Court in Mogma @nera.l Insurance Co' Ltd' V. Nanu Rcrm @ Chuhrtt Rcms ' Thus' in all the claimants Accordinglv' both the points are entitled to Rs'14,93 'gOOl-' are answered in favour of the claimants and against the appellant.

18. At this stage' the learned Standing Counsel for the lnsurance company submits that the claimants claimed only r lzoia; 18 scc 130 : l I t l ; i l . , I f I,. i i ! i 4t {i I i ^ I \ \ 11 NNR, J Macma-I24-2O2O and X OBJ.l I-2O2O a sum of Rs.1O,0O,0OO/- as compensation and the qu€rntum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.

19. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Laxmqn @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Managery Oriental 'Insurc;nce Compang Limited and anothef and .t\IotglapPa Vs. Gtttttdagal Singhs the claimants are entitled to get more amount th"rl what has been claimed, however subject to \ \ payment of the Delicit Court Fee.

20. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.l2 of 2O2O filed by the Road Transport Corporation is dismissed and the Cross- Objections No.1 L of 2O2O are allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,2O,4oO I - to Rs. 14,93 ,9OO l- with interest at the rate of 7.5"1' per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appellants are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two rnonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation 4 lzorr; 10 scc 756 s 2oo3 ACI 12 (sc) L2 NNR, J Macma-L24-_2O2O aod X OBJ, lI 2O2O amount shall be apportioned among respondents/claimants in the sa.me manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

21. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed SD/. MOHD.ISMAL REGISTRAR ,ffRUE COPY" i \\ \\r 'l \ OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- the Court of the Chief Judge City Civil Courts, Hyderabad@ith records' if any)

2. One CC to SRI I(ALLAKURI SRINIVASARAO, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI M VIJAY REDDY; Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies / To, ADI(I'SI, w HIGH COURT DATED i2810712025 t o u- x o I-! ..1.. Acr N" .so er.. \ * HC 1H COMMON J UDGMENT+DEGREE MAGMA.No.124of2o2oANDx.oBJNo.11of2020 DiSMISSING THE MACMA'No'1 24 ot 2020 tllo*rNc rHE cRoss oBJEcrloNs No'11 or 2020 WTTTOUT COSTS G Pe^6 rot' X.€ i E i i I