M.A.C.M.A v. NNR,J

Counsel for the Appellant(s):Sri. S Surender Reddy Counsel forthe Respondents 1 & 2: N Vasudeva Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT i I i i ! I ; I I t I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No.623 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellants/ claimants seeking enhancement of compensation being un-satisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to "lribunal') in M.V.O'P.No.437 of 2014, on 27.OA.2O19, wherein, the learned Tribunal has pleased to partly allow the petition and awarded an amount of Rs.9,66,000/- with proportionate future interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actua-l deposit payable by respondent Nos.l and 2 therein, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on |8-O4-2OI4 while the deceased was proceeding towards Kondapur NNR,J MACMA.No.623 ol 2O2O 2 village on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-25-H-9605 and one Ambriya was travelling as pillion rider, when they reached near Hanuman Statue on the outskirts of Kondapoor village, the Driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP- IO-Z-444a carne in opposite direction in rash and negligence manner with high speed and dashed the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down and the said bus ran over him and he died on the spot. Police, Thadvai have also registered a Crime bearing No.66 of 2Ol4 for the offences punishable under Sections 3O4-A and 337 of IPC against driver of aforesaid crime vehicle. A charge sheet was also filed by the Police stating that the said accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., RTC bus bearing No.AP- 7O-Z-444a.

3. The case of appellalts - claimants is that the deceased was hale and healthy and earning Rs.20,0OO/- per month by raising commercial crops in his 10 acres of agricultural land and was a-lso doing milk .r J NNR,J MACMA.No.623 of 2O2O business as he is having 15 she buffalos. Due to the said accident, appellants being the dependents on the income of the deceased lost their dependency. As such, they hled petition claiming compensation of Rs. 15,0O,O00/-.

4. Respondents - Corporation {iled counter denying the averments made in the petition contending that the said accident occurred was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of said RTC bus and it is also denied about the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Therefore, they are not entitled to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus baring No.AP-10-Z- 4448 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?

3. To what relieP I NNR,J MACMA.No.623 of 2O2O 4

6. In order to prove the claim, on behalf of claimants, the claimants were examined PW. 1 and 2 and got marked trxs.A-1 to A-7 i.e., certified copies of FIR, Charge Sheet, inquest, Post Mortem Examination repoi:t, pattedar pass books and Motor Vehicle Inspector report. On behalf of respondents, RW-1 was examined and got marked Ex.B-1 certified copy of Judgement in C.C.No.236 of 2014 on the file of iearned Addl. Judicia-l Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Kamareddy

7. After going into the merits of the case and after considering the entire oral and documentarlr evidence placed on record, leaned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-4448. The learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the petition ald awarded an amount of Rs.9,66,0O0/- with proportionate future interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual deposit payable by respondent Nos. I and,2 NNR,J MACMA.No.623 of 2O2O 5 therein, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same.

8. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the appellants / claimants have preferred the present M.A.C.M.A. on the following grounds: The contention of the appellants - claimants before this Court is that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is very meager as it is a case of death. Though the claimants able to place the evidence with regard to age and income of the deceased i.e., 35 years and Rs.20,O0O/- per month, learned Tribunal wrongly fixed notional income of deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month only, on which amount the loss of earnings of deceased was calculated. Therefore, the present M.A.C.M.A.

9. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for'appellants claimants and Ms.NVS. \ \ l NNR,J MACMA.No.623 of 2O2O .ar;4 6 Janaki, learned counsel representing Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC.

10. Perused the entire material placed on record and the records submitted by the learned Tribunal.

11. The main contention of the appellants - claimalts before this Court is that the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per month though he was aged about 35 years and was raising the commercial crops in his 1O acres of land and that he was also doing milk business and he was having 15 buffalos. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants further contended that to prove the income of the deceased appellants - claimants filed pattedaar passbooks of claimant No. 1 under Exs.A-S ald 4.-6. But there is no other proof to show that the deceased was also possessed 15 she buffalos and the deceased was doing agriculture in his 1O acres of land and a-lso milk business as alleged by the claimants. NNR,J MACMA.No.623 of 2O2O 7

12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants further pointed out that in spite of filing Exs.A-S and 4'-6 learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month that too without any basis.

13. On contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents pointed out that Exs.A-S and 4,-6 are the pattedar passbooks of claimant No.l and the same are not in the name of deceased, therefore, petitioners - claimants have not filed any documentary evidence to show that the deceased was having certain agricultural lands, where commercial crops were raised. In view of the same, it is clearly established that there is no proof to show that the deceased was holding any such agriculture lands as contended by the appellants - claimants and learned Tribunal has rightly held that in absence of any proof to show that the deceased was possessing certain agriculture lands in his name and on proper analysis and NNR,J MACMA.No.623 of 2O2O 8 (, j', considering the ground realities the learned Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.S,OOO/- per month. Basing of the said income learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation ln respect of future prospects, which needs no interference and the sarne appears to be the proper andjust. L4. Learned counsel for the appellants - claimants has disputed about the quantum of compensation which is awarded under the conventional heads and also the application of multiplier basing on the age of the deceased. Learned Tribunal granted conventional heads by following the principles laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Court in National Insurance Cornpang Limited. a Pranag Sethil. Therefore, this Court finds no interference with the sarne.

15. Age of the deceased at the time of marriage was 35 years. Basing on the age ofthe deceased i.e.,35 years at ' 2018 (10) sc 450 NNR,J MACMA.No.623 of 2O2O 9 the time of accident learned Tribunal has applied multiplier '16' as per Column No.4 of the schedule prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Scrla Venna a' Delhi Trqnsport Corporation2., which also does not require any interference. As there is no dispute regarding the amounts awarded under the other Heads as sucfr there is nothing left to interfere.

16. Considering the entire material placed on record and also considering the rival contentions of both the parties, I do not see any ground being made out to interfere with the hndings of the learned Tribunal ald this appeal is liable to be dismissed. L7. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. 22001 ALd Rq8 (sc) //TRUE COPY// Sd/-MOHD ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTI ofun,"=* To, +.t l.TheChairman,MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-VlllAddl.DistrictJudge, Nizamabad (lf any Lower Court record)

2. One CC to Sri. S Surender Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. one CC to Sri. N Vasudeva Reddy(SC FOR RTC) Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I ! i I I I I I l i I I HIGH COURT DATED: 2410212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.623 of 2020 ( rrL SfA 16: ( o o 13 rUE M C * t)(SD/.Jt'\r', DISMISSED. WITHOUT COSTS. 6 {