Telangana State Road Transport Corporation v. C. Satyanarayana
I [ 32s8 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD MONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU MACMA.No.382 of 2018 Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Order and Decree made in MVOP No. 287 of 2014 dated 02.06.2017 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, It/otor Accident Claims Tribunal cum the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Between:
1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), Rep. by its Vice Chairman and l\,4anaging Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad
2. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, The Depot Manager, (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), Ranigunj Depot, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.
...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND
1. C. Satyanarayana, S/o. C. Babaiah Rl/o. H.No. 11-1-66416, Seetharambagh, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.
2. C. Swathi, W/o. C. Satyanarayana, H.No. 11-1-664/6, Seetharambagh, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.
3. C. Sai Kumar, S/o. C. Satyanarayana, Rl/ o. H.No. 11-1-664/6, Seetharambagh, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.
... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Counsel for the Appellants: SRI N. VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI THANDU SRINIVAS The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
HONOURAT}LE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU M.A.C,M.A.NO.382 of 2o18 JUDGMENT:
This appea has been prt:ferred by the State Road Transport Corporation of Telangana, against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hydr:rabad, in M.V.O.P.No.287 of 2014 by which the trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.7,73,000/- against the claim of Rs.9,00,000/-. The respondents No.1 and 2 are the parents and resDondent No.-l is the younger brother of one C.Vishnu Kumar, who herein after will be referred a deceased and who died in a road accident.
2.
They rave filed a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, wh ch was registered as M.V.O.P.No.2B7 of 2014 before the Motor Accident Clairns Tribunal, Hyderabad and sought for an amount cf Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of deceaserJ in a road accident. According to the material averments in the said petition, it was their case that on 28.11.2013, whi'e the deceased was proceeding towards Secunderabad, on a Honda motorcycle and when he reached Basheerbagh flyover, the driver of AP 29 Z 3550 drove the bus in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the
SSRN,] MACMA No.382 of 2018 deceased, due to which he fell down on the road from his bike, bus I ran over him. The petition was contested by respondent RTC, who are appellants in the present appeal on the ground that there was no accident by the said bus and that they disputed the age, income etc., of the deceased. The father of the deceased was examined as PW.1, one more witness was also examined on behalf of the claimants. They marked Exs.A1 to AB which includes copies of FIR, charge sheet, PME report, MVI report, qualification of the deceased etc., The Court below having accepted the contention of claimants, awarded Rs.7,73,000/- and apportioned the amount on the pa rents.
3.
The learned counsel fairly conceded the accident, mainly argued that the Court below awarded excess amount of compensation, added 50% of future prospects which is against the finding of judgment in "Insurance Company Vs. PranaySethi and Ors.r" case, and the amounts awarded under the other heads are also excess and against the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) case, thereby, sought for reducing the compensation amount.
' 2017 (6) ALr 60 (sc)
SSRN,] MACMA No-382 of 2018 4.
Now the point for consideration is Whether the trial Court awarded excess amount, if so, whether award can be set aside by reducing the compensation amount as prayed tor?
5, The main claim for my consideration in the present appeal is about the income of the deceased, addition of 50o/o towards future prospects and award of amounts under the other heads. According to the record placed before this Court, the respondents/cla ima nts No.1 and 2 lost their son, who was aged about 23 years, and who was a student with a bright Future, in a road traffic accident. It is true, they did not place any evidence with regard to the correct income of the deceased. The appellants did not place any evidence before the Court to believe that the deceased was not a student. As per the averments made in the First Information Report and according to the averments made in PME report,it is clear that the deceased was 23 years old.
Even though, the responoents/cla ima nts were unable to prove that he was earning some money by attending electrical works etc., it can safely be presumed that he after completing the Graduation can easily earn atleast a sum of Rs.200/- per day and Rs,6,000/- per month. The Court below considered the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month.
--_ SSRN,J MACMA No.382 oi 2018 added as Future prospects. The Court below having added 50% of the said income, considered the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and after deduction of 5Oo/o of the income as his living expenses calculated the loss as Rs.36,000/- per annum and the Court below having applied '18' multiplier considered the loss of income as Rs.6.48,000/-. Though no specific evidence is placed about the actual or expected income of the deceased, he being a student of 23 years can earn Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month after completing the graduation and if 4Oo/o of the said income is added as future prospects it is Rs.8,400/-, thereby, the respondents/cla ima nts could have awarded more compensation. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Court below itself is very low. I feel. the conclusion of the trial Court that the loss of dependency at Rs.6,48,000/- cannot be disturbed. 6.
It is true. the Court below .awarded Rs.1.00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. It is true in the judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that an amount of Rs.15,000/- be awarded towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Since the
SSRN,I MACMA No.382 of 2018 respondents/claimants i.e., parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.55,000/- each, it would be Rs.1,10,000/- and if Rs.15,000/- is added towards funeral expenditure again the amount is Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Court below a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- is also need not be disturbed. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
7.
In the result, appeal is dismissed.
Consequent ly, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
ii SD/-B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER
1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records)
2. One CC to Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri Thandu Srinivas, Advocate tOpUCl
4. Two CD Copies
5. One Spare Copy //TRUE COPY// To, br s
HIGH COURT DATED: 0410712022 ta^ i ;1r { I ztt
JUDGMENT
MACMA.No.3B2 of 2018 ;t:+) DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t t \\\'
[ 3258 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD MONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU MACMA.No.382 of 2018 Between:
'1 . Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad
2. f ebngana State Road Transport Corporation, The Depot Manager, (Prior to bifurcation known as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), Ranigunj Depot, Ranigunj, Secunderabad.
...APPELLANTS/RESPON DENTS AND C. Satyanarayana, S/o. C. Babaiah Rl/o. H.No. 11-1-66416, Seetharambagh, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.
C. Swathi, W/o. C. Satyanarayana, H.No. 1 1-1-664/6, Seetharambagh, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.
C. Sai Kumar, S/o. C. Satyanarayana, Rl/ o. H.No. 11-1-66416, Seetharambagh, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Order and Decree made in TVVOP No. 287 of 2014 dated 02.06.2017 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, lt/otor Accident Claims Tribunal cum the court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judqment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri Thandu Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondents.
This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:
'I . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed.
2- That there be no order as to costs in this Appeal. SD/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// qD SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderaba.l.
2. Two CD Copies
3. One Spare Copy pb,
\ HIGH COURT DATED: 04107t2022 DECRE MACMA.No.3B,2 of 2018 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS (n \ q Ir-,