The General Manager v. 1. Bantu Lachamma

Judgment

This appeal is hled by APSRTC, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 05.09.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2Ol2 passed by the Motor Accidenl Claims Tribunal-cum-Il Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal").

For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The casc o[ the claimants before the trial Court is that the deceased went to Ananthagiri on his duty on 20.06.2012 and while returning on eis Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing No.AP 24-AK- 1693 Lo Koheda, on the way at 9:4O a.m., when LLe reached the culvert in the :utskirts of Thangellapally, bus bearing No.AP- 1 1-Z- 624 of Husnabad Depot driven by the l"t respondent in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed th(l motor bike ol the deceased, in the process of overtaking him. .As a result of which, the deceased fell down from the motor bike, suffered severe head injury and died on the spot. The petitioners further claimed that the deceased used to work as a Credit Assistant in Spandana Spoorthy Finance Limited Koheda Branch. 2 ETD,J MACMA No.91 2021

4. The respondent No.l/driver of the bus has filed counter affldavit contending that he is a senior driver and had good experience and was holding a valid driving license and that the vehicle was also road worthy and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, and that he was not negligent and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The respondent No.2 - RTC has also hled counter afhdavit stating that their Corporation is not 1iab1e to pay any compensation as the deceased died due to his negligent driving and that the bus driver was not at all rash and negligent.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:- Wtrcther on 20.06.2O12 at 9:40 am at the outskirts of ThangallapaLlg, the driuer of APSRTC bugs beaing No.AP-11-2-624 droue the uehicle in a rash ond negligent manner and dashed against motor cycle bearing No.AP-24-AK 693 of the deceased- Bantu Nagesuar Roo ond thereby caused his death?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so to tuhot rate and from uhom?

3. To uthcLt relief ?"

7. The petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked trxs.Al to ,A,9. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was ad&rced \ 3 ETD,J MAcMA No 91-2021

8. Basing or the evidence on record' the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs 13,O0,OOO/- as claimed by the petitioners with interest @, 7t)/o l':er annum from the date of petition til1 the date of realization Aggt-ievecl by the said order and decree dated 05 09'2O19 g. passed in MVOP.No.2 88 ol 2012, the present appeal is filed bv the RTC 10 HeardS:iA.RaviBabu,learned'counseifortheappellants and Sri Karu rakar Reddy, learned counsel for lhe respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ll.Thelearnedcounselfortheappellanthasarguedthatthe Tribunal ought not to have held that the accident occurred due to the negligenct: of the RTC driver and that the accident rvas onll' due to thc rash and negligence of the deceased He further argued that the TribtLna I has u'rongly taken the multiplier a's " 17" \'(rithout any documentary proof of the age of the deceased and that it also erred in calcr-rlating the compensation of Rs.13,06,620/ towards loss of lile and further ought not to have awarded any compensation for love and affection' Therefore' praysd to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal by allowing this a'ppeal 4 ETD,J MACMA No.91 2021

12. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the deceased was earning a salary of Rs.9,150/_ per month and that he is the only son to [he petitioners and was aged only 23 years and that in fact the claimants were entitled to more compensation than that is awarded by the Tribunar and he therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

13. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the following points arise for determination:_ 1 . Whether the driuer. of ApSRTC bus bearing No.Ap I I 2_624 u.tas \ol lash and negltgent uthile diuing th. on 2O.06.20 j2 at 9:4O o.m on th,e outskirts of ThangallapaUg causing the accid_ent agairst motor bike beaing wo.ep_Z+_eXlA% of the d_eceased_ Bantu Nagesu.tar Rao resuLiing in hi_s deoth? "bu,

2. Whether th_e Tibunat compensation? fns granted excess amount of

3. Whe_ther the petitioners are not entitled to compensation und_er the heads of loue and affection

4. Whetlrcr the Order and decree passed. by the Tibunal need. any interference?

5. To uhat relieJ?

14. Point No.1: a) The accident is not disputed, but the only conrention of the appellants is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. A perusal of Ex.Al/FIR reveals that it was registered based on a complaint given by one Lachaiah/father of the deceased and his complaint reveals that while his son was going on Hero Honda splendour bearing No.Ap-24-AK- 1693 at around 9:4o a.m., .i l-,*! -r ," r_EFi/ A ../: 5 ETD,I MACMA No.91 2021 near Thangal1a.pa11y, the RTC bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manuer at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of his son and that his son sustained head injury and died on the spot. He is not an eye u,itness to the accident. b) The charge sheet under Ex.A6 reveals that the RTC bus coming from trehrnd at high speed in order to overtake the bike, has hit the mc,tor bike as a result of which the deceased fel1 down on the road and sustained head injury and died on the spot. It is the evidence of PW2 -Erravelli Mahesh who is examined as eve r.r,itness in this case, that he boarded the RTC bus from Bejja.rki;o Husnabad in order to go to Koheda, when the bus reached Krishnasrvamy Hill (Gutta) the driver of the bus drove the bus with a high speed .n a rash and negligent manner and that the Hero Honda Splendr;r Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-24-AK- 1693 was going in front of th e btis and the bus r.r'hile overtaking the motorbike at the culvert, has hit the motorbike from behind due to which the rider of the motorbike fe1l down and died on the spo[. In his cross examination he stated that he does not remember the number of the bus in .,r4-rich he was traveliing. Nothing material could be elicited through his cross examination to discredit tris evidence. A common man cannot be expected to remember the number of the bus irr rphich hc has travelled few years ago. Thc witness was 6 ETD,J MACMA No 91 2021 examined on 13.O3.2018 while the accident occurred on

20.06-2012. He is iisted as LW4 in the charge sheet filed under Ex.A6 and he is shown to be the passenger in the bus and an eye witness to the incident. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 can be salely relied upon. c) A perusal of the Crime Detailed Form/Ex.A4 reveals that the deceased was going on the Ieft side of the road from Thangalapally and it is also depicted that he fell down from the motorcycle on the road and there are skid marks at the scene of offence. It is further revealed that RTC Bus was also travelling in the same direction. It is the evidence of PW2 who is an eye witness, that the bus driver tried to overtake the motorbike and hit the motor bike. The manner in vl,hich the accident occurred as seen from the crime record shows that while the motor bike was going towards Koheda, the RTC bus driver was trying to overtake the bike and hit it from the srde as a result of which the deceased fell down and sus[ained injuries. Therefore, it is revealed from the evidence of PW2 coupled with trxs.A4 and A6, that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver and that there is no contributory negligence of the deceased. Thus, point No. 1 is answered accordingly. 'ry.lFry .. - . ,./, -{ I ETD,.' MACMA No.91 2021

15. Point Nos.2 & 3:- c) The contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the deceased as 26 years and granted excess cornpensation. The age of the deceased as revealed from the post mortem cxamination report under trx.A3 is 26 y<:ars. Based on Ex.A3, the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 26 years. Hence, t.he same cannot be found fault with. Another point raised by the appellant is that the multiplier is also wrongly taken by the Tribunzrl. As per the dicta laid down in Sarla Vermd Vs' Delhi Transport Corpordtionl, the multiplier for the said age group is "17". The principle laid down in Sorrla Vertna (supral) is upheld in National Insurance Cotryrang Limited Vs. Sethi qnd Others2, Therefore, the Tribunal was not r'l'rong in adapting the rnultiplier as " 17". Thus, it is held that there is no Pranag . error committt:d by the Tribunal as far as the age and mr-tltiplier are concerned. d) It is asserted by PWl that the salary of the deceased was Rs.9,15O/- per month as he was working as Credit Assistant in Spandana Spoorthy Finance Limited, Koheda. Salary Certihcates are lrled under Exs.A8 and A9 for the months of April 2072 and May,2012 respectively. A perusal of the said exhibits reveals that ' zoog (sfs€c ' AIR 20t 7 scc 5157 tz t 8 ETD,,J tvlACMA No.91_2021 as per Ex.A8 the net salary of the deceased was Rs. 1O, 100/_ and as per Ex.A9 the net salary is Rs.9,1S0/_. pW3 is the Branch Manager of Spandana Spoorthy Finance Limited, Koheda. He deposed that Exs.A8 and A.9 were issued by their company. Nothing material was elicited from his cross examination lo dislodge his evidence. Ex.A9 being the latest Salary Certifrcate is taken into consideration. e) In Magma General Insurance Compang Limited. a. Nanu Ram @ Chuhr-u Ram and othersc the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in pranag Sethi,s case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, the claimants have to be awarded Rs.4O,O00/_ each towards loss of consortium i.e., Rs.8O,OOO/- But the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,5O,OOO/- under the head ..loss of love and aflection." 0 On applying the principles laid down by the Nationo;l Insrtrance Compang Limited. Vs. pranag Sethi and. othersa, tine Tribunal has awarded compensation. In addition to that the Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of love and affection. The same is contended by the appellant to be wrong. (20 r8) 18 SCC 130 n 20t7 afn sc s lsz ,: ,/ I I I 9 ETD,J MACMA No.91 2021 g) That rrr:ans, instead of awarding Rs.80,O00/-, the Tribunal has awarded lts.1,5O,O00/- and instead of granting it under loss of consortium, it has put it under "loss of love and affection". An overall perusal of the award reveals that the loss ol'dependency is arrived at Rs. 13,O6,62O/- to which the amounts under conventional heads i.e.,Rs.15,OOO/- for Loss of Estate, Rs.1S,OOO/- for Funeral Expenses and Rs. 8O,OOO/- Loss of Consortium have to be added. Though the Tribunal has awarded excess amount of Rs.4O,OOO/- under the head of love and affection and arrived at Rs.14,74,62OI', it has restricted the amount of compensation to the claim of the petitioner i.e., Rs,13,OO,OOO/-. Therefore, on this ground a1so, the appeal lacks merits, because, the Tribunal has not granted any excess amount. Thus, r-hc point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the appellant 16) Point No.4: In view of the discussion held supra, it is hell that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal do not need any interference and therefore the same is upheid. I I 10 .... ETD,] MACMA No.91 2021 t7J. Point No.S: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 05.O9.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending lf any, in this appeal, shail stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- N SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR NOF FICER Judoe Nalgonda at SurYaPet

1.The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal um ll Additional District i. ONC CC tO SRI. CHNI'T.ONN SEKHAR N (SC FOR TSRTC ZONE 2) AdVOCAIC IOPUCI 5-%i'""6" to sRt. KARUNAKAR REDDY Advocate [oPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies I \ To, GSA Qft \ \ i : l : I I i I I I i t I I I I I i I : i I I i 1 I l I t HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 JUDGEMENT MACMA.No.91 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS f +)- o\ L,/ ) 6 r-) '.-) ? 4lrtP 2ffi .{. r..: o=*frr"' [3444l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMAI-A DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 91 OF 2021 Between: The General [\/anager, APSRTC, (presently TSRTC) Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANTS AND

1. Bantu Lachamma , Laxmi, W/o. Lachaiah, age 41 years, Occ. Household 2. Bantu Lachaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, aged 44 years, Occ. Toddy tapper. Both are Rl/o. Bhakthalapuram Village of Panpahad Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3. Lachannagari Sammi Reddy, S/o. Kista Reddy, aged 42 years,.Occ. Driver in APSRTC, Husnabad Depot, Rl/o H. No. 2968, Potharam (S) Vittage of Hyderabad of Husbanad Mandal, Karimnagar District (Driver of APSRTC Bus.No. AP-11-Z-624. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed Under Section '173 of lr,ilotor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in N/ V.O.P.No.2BB of 2004 dated. 05.09.20'l g on the file of the Court of the Chairman, [\Iotor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum ll Additional District Judge Nalgonda at Suryapet This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the I\/VOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRI N CHANDHRASHEKAR, Advocate for the Appellants and SRI KARUNAKAR REDDY , Advocate for the Respondent No1 and 2 This court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the lvlotor Accident Civil trrliscellaneous appeal be and hereby dismissed uphotding the Order and Decree dated 05.09.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2 aa of 2012 passed b)' the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. 2- That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/-N SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, [i]otor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum ll Additional District J udge Nalgonda at Suryapet

2.Two Cd Copies GSA trD- HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 DECREE MACMA.N o.91 of 2021 DISMISSING OF MACMA WITHOUT COST ?r- g L 7> J