HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
Cross-Objections (SR) No.51404 of 2011
in M.A.C.M.A.No.939 of 2011
and
M.A.C.M.A.No.939 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
The respondents-Depot Manager and
Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation(for
short, ‘the APSRTC’) of the claim petition O.P.No.2277 of 2008 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) by
the claimants i.e. wife and her minor children(one son and one daughter) of the
deceased by name Md. Sadiq, on the file of the learned Chairman of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’),for compensation of
Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of her husband in the motor accident which took
place on 13.11.2007 near Lathipur bus stop in the route Mannanur to Dindi
villages while the deceased along with his friend was proceeding on a motor
cycle, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No.AP 28
Z 478 belongs to the respondents, since granted 8,30,000/-, impugning the same,
preferred this appeal with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the
judgment and decree passed by the tribunal is illegal, contrary to law, weight
of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the tribunal went wrong in
coming to conclusion that the accident occurred was only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the bus, it ought to have held that the
deceased was also equally responsible for the accident as the accident took
place due to collusion between the two vehicles coming in opposite direction,
that the tribunal ought to have seen that the respondents-claimants did not
make the insured and insurer of the motor cycle involved in the accident as
parties to the in the claim petition, the tribunal erred in not assessing the
income of injured properly, and also in applying correct multiplier and the
compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant, hence to set aside the award
of the tribunal and reduce the quantum of compensation. Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy,
learned standing counsel for the appellants reiterated said contentions during
course of hearing.
2. On the other hand, the claimants
filed cross-objections vide Cross-Objections(SR) No.51404 of 2011 stating that
the compensation awarded by the tribunal is unjust and utterly low not proper
under all conventional heads, that the tribunal erred in fixing the income of
the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, it ought to have seen that the deceased
was a Registered Medical Practitioner, a fair price shop dealer and doing other
business and considering the above aspect and the documentary evidence to prove
the income of the deceased, it ought to have held that the deceased was earning
Rs.12,000/- per month, that the tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the
deceased was hale and healthy as on the date of the accident and considering
the same, the tribunal ought to have applied proper multiplier while
determining the compensation and rate of interest which is also meager, hence
to allow the cross-objections. Smt. Shahjahan Begum, the learned counsel for
the cross-objectors reiterated said contentions during course of hearing.
3. Perused the material on
record. The parties hereinafter are
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the
appeal.
4. Now the
points that arise for consideration in the appeal as well as Cross-Objections
are:
1. Whether
the compensation awarded by the tribunal is either utterly low and unjust or
excessive and exorbitant and requires interference by this Court while sitting
in appeal to award just compensation, if so, with what observations?
2.
To
what result?
Point
No.1:
5. There is no dispute with regard to the manner
of accident. Therefrom there is nothing to show contribution of the deceased.
Coming to the dispute on the quantum of compensation from the appeal and
cross-objections supra particularly on the avocation of the deceased in
considering the income therefrom whether Private Medical Practitioner (PMP) or Registered
Medical Practitioner(RMP) concerned, the Ex.A.5 original S.S.C. certificate shows
he only completed 10th class, for Ex.A.6 is the driving license, Exs.A.7
to A.10 are the certificates of training of Health Care Products, Public Health
and Sanitation Technology, Senior Home Nursing and Ambulance service and the record
shows the deceased worked as a compounder under Surgeon for some time. But the
same will not made him eligible to practice as a Private Medical Practitioner. When there is no proof as to the avocation of
the deceased whether PMP or RMP, it cannot be taken into consideration but for
he is eligible to work as a compounder from Ex.A.11 certificate issued by a
private doctor and also with other certificate courses. Even coming to the
running of a fair price shop, Ex.A.12 certificate of fair price shop, the
income from the fair price shop is uncertain, but for an average income to be
arrived. If the income of the deceased at Rs.5000/-p.m. is taken out of the
certificate courses and his experience as a compounder and running a fair price
shop though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the APSRTC-appellants
herein that it is to take at Rs.15,000/- per annum at best otherwise as per the
Apex Court’s expression in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar[1]
that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably
estimated with a maximum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. When Rs.5,000/- p.m. is taken into consideration, for what is discussed
just, from the age about more than 26 years as per the Ex.A.5 S.S.C.
certificate and since the claim is under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, as per Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2]
, the multiplier that is applicable is 17. If 1/3rd is deducted out
of the earnings estimated at Rs.5000/- towards personal expenses, it comes to
Rs.3,333.33 paise x 12 x 17(multiplier) = Rs.6,80,000/- + Rs.1,55,000/-(Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium to the 1st claimant, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
estate and Rs.20,000/- towards care and guidance to the two minor children
Rs.10,000/- each), it comes to Rs.8,35,000/- and what the tribunal awarded of
Rs.8,30,000/- is enhanced to Rs.8,35,000/- and also enhancing rate of interest from
6% to 7.5% p.a. as per the expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir
Singh[3]. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
Point No.2:
6.
In the result, the appeal of the respondents of the claim petition (the APSRTC)
is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the claimants are allowed in part by
enhancing the compensation awarded by the tribunal of Rs.8,30,000/- to Rs.8,35,000/-
as well as enhancing the rate of interest from 6 to 7½% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization. Rest of the award holds good. There is no order as
to costs.
7.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall
stand closed.
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 27.12.2014
VVR
