Income (per month) vs Pranay Sethrl)

12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-petitioner No.2 submits that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly awarded just compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.

13. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.

14. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned award passed by the Tribunal suffers from perversity, does it requires interference of this Court, if so, the compensation awarded is just and proper?

15. T.Mukesh has lodged a complaint before Inspector of Police, l,larket Police Station, Secunderabad on 13.01.2019 stating that on 13.01.2C19 at about 8.30 A.M. his mother-in-law Smt.V.Vijaya Lakshmi, age 47 years came to Secunderabad from Alwal for shopping, while she was walking at 31 bus stop, Secunderabad, driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 656L, route No.219 came in a rash and negligent manner from 31 bus stop and was proceeding towards Clock Tower and hit Smt.Vijaya Lakshmi due to which she fell down in iront of Baba lodge and left side front wheel of the bus rolled on her two legs. She was shifted to Railway Hospital, Mettuguda for medical treatment. Basing on the Said complaint, P.S. Market police station \ BRMRJ MACMA l3_2022 has registered Ex.Al on 13.01.2019 against the driver of RTC bus No.AP 11 Z 6561 under Section 337 of IPC. Ex.A3 is the charge sheet filed by the police against driver of the crime vehicle (respondent No.3 herein) for the offence under Section 304-4 of IPC.

16. PW.1 is the husband of the deceased, he deposed the manner in which the accident has taken place. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is not an eye-witness to the incident. He denied the suggestion that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. 17 . PW.2 is an eye-witness to the incident, he deposed that the deceased came to Secunderabad from Alwal for shopping and while she was walking at 31 bus stop, Secunderabad and on reaching Baba lodge, meanwhile the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6561 drove it in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed the deceased from back side, on account of which she sustained grievous injuries all over the body and immediately she was shifted to Railway Hospital, Mettuguda from there to Max Cure Hospital, Hyderabad but she died on 15.02.2019 while undergoing treatment and he has seen th€ accident in a close distance. In his cross- examination, he admitted that his name is not mentioned in the charge sheet as an eye-witness. 7170 BRMR,J MACMA_13_2022

18. On perusal of Ex.A3 charge sheet, PW.2 is shown as LW.6 as a witness. As the place of accident is at 8.30 A.M. the presence of PW.2 cannot be doubted.

19. Appellant has not adduced any evidence, to substantiate their contention that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. The evidence of PW.2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 establishes the fact that the driver of the crime vehicle (respondent No.3 herein) drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that it is the driver of the crime vehicle who caused the accident.

20. It rs mentioned in the claim petition that the occupation of the deceased is tailor and household service and was earning Rs.15,000/- per monrh. PV/.1 has deposed in the same lines that his wife used to earn Rs.15,000/- as a professional tailor a part from looking after the housel',tld work.

21. PW.3 is an independent witness who deposed that he worked under the deceased as an Assistant like stitching buttons, hooks, falls, pico etc., and that the deceased used to stitch six to seven blouses a day, was chargin-o Rs.300/- for each blouse and was earning an amount cf Rs.1800/- per day, she used to pay him Rs.10O/- for daily assistance and the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.25,000/- per moith after meeting all expenses including the assistant charges BRMR,J MACMA I3 2022 and she has 10 years experience in the tailoring work. In his cross- examination, he stated that he has not filed any document to show that he is working under the deceased Vijaya Lakshmi as an assistant. He denied the suggestion that Vijaya Lakshmi is not running a tailoring shop and he is not earning Rs.25,000/- per month.

22. Accident occurred on 13.01.2019, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of PW.3 and opined that the deceased was a professional tailor and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Tribunal has rightly taken the earnings oF the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. In so far as the age of the deceased is concerned, in the complaint lodged by the son-in-law of the deceased wherein he has mentioned the age of his mother-in-law as 47 years and the age of PW.1 shown in the affidavit is 54 years but in Ex.A2-inquest report and in Ex.A5-PME report the age of the deceased is shown as 54 years. As rightly observed by the Tribunal that when the age of the husband is 54 years by the date of his evidence, the deceased age as mentioned in the complaint dated 13.01.2OL9 as 47 years is rightly considered by the Tribunal. Ex.A6 is supported with medical bills of Rs.1,38,410/-.

23. The Tribunal has rightly added the future prospects @ 25olo as the deceased was aged about 40 to 50 years and also rightly applied multiplier '13' as she was in the age group of 46 to 50 years and deducted 1/3d towards the personal expenses of the deceased/as the r-!|!---!-- \ \ BRMR,J MACMA_13-2022 dependents two in number by the date of accident. The computation arrived by the Tribunal is as under: Sl. No Name of the Head Amount awarded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 Income (per month) Rs. 15,000/- Add 25o/o future prospects (as per National lnsu.ance Co. Ltd Vs Pranay Sethrl) Rs. 18,750/- ( 15,000 X 25Yo) +15,000 l/3'o deductions towards Personal Expenses (as per Sn t.sarla V-drma Vs. Delhi Transoort Ccrporaf on') Rs.12,500/- 18,750- (18,7s0xu3) Annual Income l : Multiplrer '1 3', Pa rental Consortium Loss of Esta te -- t-unerai L \pcnses Rs.1,50,000/- ( 12,500 x 12) Rs.19,50,000/- (r,50,000 x 13) Rs.44,000/- Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- r,1c d ica I Bl1!s Rs.1,38,410/- Tota i Rs.2L,65,41O/-

24. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and awarded lust compensation- Appellant has not made out any case to set aside the impugned order, there are no merits in the Appeal '(2017) 15 scc 680 ' lzool; t, scc tzt BRMR,J MACMA 13 2022 deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and as accordingly dismissed.

25. In the result, MACMA.No.13 of 2022 is dismissed. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s, pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs. SD/.A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

1. The Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll 2 One CC to Sri N.Pravben Reddy (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies NVI},'PSI- $ HIGH COURT DATED:2110812025 JUDGMENT+DEGREE MACMA.No.13 of 2022 ST AoATE o 1t, \\[$ ?$t * o 4\ .h t DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS J 't ! [ 34481 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HQNOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUOHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 13 OF 2022 Between: M/s. T.S. Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Regional Manager, GH Region, Personal Department, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad. ...AppellanURespondent. AND

1. V. Babu Rao, (died) 2. V. Naveen, S/o. V. Babu Rao, Age. 30 years, Occ. Unemployed, R/o. H. No.8- 1-61, Market street, Secunderabad. Respondents/Petitioners.

3. Md. Jaleel Ahmed, S/o MD. Hussain, Age. Major, Occ. RTC Driver, R/o. H. No.3-3-52, lnamdar galli, Yellareddy, Kama Reddy District. ...RespondenURespondent Appeal filed under Section '173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O P.No.393 of 2019 daled 0410812021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Praveen Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and the and none appeared for the Respondents, This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby dismissed

2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other respects. and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/.A. JAYASREE ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ION OFFlCER To, \

1. The Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri N.Praveen Reddy (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL HIGH COURT ,DATED:2110812025 1 r{E SI4 )o i ,, t q1,c tr)2t z * PATC\ DECREE MACMA.No.13 of 2022 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (