Apsrtc v. Gopi Subhashini

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3412 OF 2004 JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2003 in O.P. No.101 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby and whereunder, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was granted towards compensation for the death of Gopi Srinivasa Rao @ Sreenu in a road accident, the instant appeal is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') on the ground that the compensation awarded was excessive and arbitrary.

2. Appellant herein, who is Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabd, Hyderabad (for short, 'Corporation'), is the respondent, while respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein, who are the claimants are petitioner Nos.1 to 6, respectively, in the original petition.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal in the original petition.

4. The facts in brief are that on 21.01.2000, the said Gopi Srinivasa Rao (deceased), a legal practitioner in

the local courts, was proceeding along with his clerkSrinivasa Rao to Dharmavaram to collect debts on Hero Honda motorcycle driven by his clerk and while their motorcycle reached Tatikulapalem at about 8-00 a.m., an RTC bus bearing registration No.AEZ 5818 belonging to Pidili Depot came in opposite direction driven at high speed and hit the motorcycle, due to which, he fell down and received injuries and when he was being shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole, he succumbed to injuries and his clerk also received injuries. The petitioners, being wife, minor children, parents and younger brother of the deceased, claiming that they lost their bread earner, sought a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondentCorporation.

5. Respondent-Corporation filed counter opposing the claim mainly attributing rash and negligent driving to the motorcyclist.

6. Basing on the said pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues about the responsibility for the accident.

During enquiry, petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 to substantiate their claim; whereas, on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were filed.

7. On appraisal of evidence let in by the parties, the Tribunal held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners recording a finding that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the accident had occurred. On issue No.2, the Tribunal having found that the deceased as legal practitioner used to engage three clerks and paying Rs.3,000/- per month to each clerk, fixed the monthly earnings at Rs.5,000/- or Rs.60,000/- per annum and applying multiplier '17', arrived loss of dependency at Rs.10,20,000/- and even granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, and, thus, determined compensation as Rs.10,50,000/-, but restricted the same to Rs.6,00,000/- as the claim was laid for Rs.6,00,000/-.

8. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge in the instant appeal contending in the grounds that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the evidence on record, and, in fact, ought to have recorded finding that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motorcycle, the accident had occurred and even the earnings of Rs.5,000/- taken by the Tribunal was on higher side without there being any legally acceptable evidence and, therefore, sought to set aside the order under challenge.

9. No representation on either side.

10. Perused the order under challenge and the

evidence on record, both, oral and documentary, let in by the parties. It is no doubt true, the Tribunal has fixed monthly earnings at Rs.5,000/- and arrived annual income at Rs.60,000/- and applied multiplier '17' and worked out the loss of dependency at Rs.10,20,000/-. In fact, the Tribunal ought to have deducted atleast 1/4th towards personal expenses. Even then also, loss of dependency would works out to Rs.7,65,000/-. In that view of the matter, the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- granted by the Tribunal as compensation can neither be termed as excessive nor arbitrary. However, so far as the rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal granted the same at 9% per annum but the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others[1].

11. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed in part modifying the order passed by the Tribunal, by reducing the rate of interest, as indicated above, and confirming the said order in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs.

[12.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in the instant appeal, stand closed.

___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J 8th March, 2016 siva [1] 2013 ACJ 1403