HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1827
OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellants-Andhra Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation (for short, ‘Corporation’), filed this appeal, having
been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal–cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’)
in M.V.O.P.No.2742 of 2006 dated 06.04.2006, awarding high compensation of Rs.5,00,608/-(Rupees
five lakh six hundred and eight only) as against the claim of the respondents of
Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakh only), in the claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. Heard Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing
counsel for the appellants and Sri Md.Jameel Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for
the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that
the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and
probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving wrong conclusion that the accident occurred due to
negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus instead of that of deceased
who was going in the middle of the road without observing traffic, that erred
in taking income of the deceased as Rs.3,911/- p.m. based on the evidence of
P.W.3 who is not a competent witness and also failed in deducting 50% of the
income towards personal expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor, hence to
allow the appeal. Whereas it is the contention of the claimants as respondents
to the appeal that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for negligent
driving of bus driver in ran over the deceased with said conclusion is just and
requires no interference, hence to dismiss the appeal. 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 are:
1.
Whether
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly abnormal and requires interference
by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so what amount
to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?
2.
To what result?
POINT-1:
5.
The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal in deciding the appeal lis are
that, on 13.12.2006 at about 9.30 p.m. due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (APSRTC bus
bearing No.AP-28Z-145) belongs to the appellants’ Corporation, hit the deceased
by name Mohammad Rahaman @ Raheem s/o Md. Meera Saheb, aged about 22 years,
resident of H.No.3-14-36/18/22/3, Kamakshi- puram, Viveknagar, Ramanthapur,
Rangareddy district, working as Retainer for ICICI Bank Limited, while he was
proceeding on foot along with one Syed Meera, as a result, he sustained grievous
injuries, immediately shifted to Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad and then to
Yashoda hospital, Secunderabad where he was declared dead, which occurrence is
covered by Ex.A.1 First Information Report under Section 304-A IPC, Ex.A.2
charge sheet, Ex.A.5 MVI report and Ex.A.4 postmortem report. After considering
oral and documentary evidence on record including P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 with
reference to Exs. A.1 to A.5, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal rightly came
to conclusion of the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of
the bus driver to make liable the APSRTC and
for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere but
for the dispute on the quantum of compensation.
6. Before coming to decide, what is
just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, It is apt to state that
perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or
frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as
stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James[1],
it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases
is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in
comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent
inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to
what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of
a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in
terms of money. The object is to mitigate
hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives
due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither
be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in
measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of
damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount
recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charle
red House Credit v. Tolly[2]
remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it
is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver[3]
observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is
invariably difficult without some guess work but no other process can be
devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money
with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest
Control (India) Private Limited[4]
at paragraph No.12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a
Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves
some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy
linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be
viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor
Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may
have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in
case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care,
guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to
the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of
injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings
particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be
incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required.
7.
From above legal position, coming to the facts, as per the evidence of
P.W.1-mother of deceased before the Tribunal that the deceased was working as
Retainer for ICICI Bank limited and for 25 days prior to his death he earned
Rs.3911/- and for 13 days prior to his death earned Rs.2272/- and average
monthly earnings comes to Rs.5,000/- and the Tribunal from the evidence of
P.W.3 Sales officer of the office of the deceased, taken therefrom net monthly
earnings at Rs.3911/-. If average of Rs.4,000/- even taken as monthly earnings
and 50% increase therefrom towards future prospects from the age of the mother-1st
claimant comes to Rs.6,000/-, half of the amount therefrom is deducted towards
personal expenses, it comes to Rs.3000/- p.m. x 12 = Rs.36,000/- p.a.
multiplier 15 taken from age of the mother
i.e. 38 years, then it comes to Rs.5,40,000/-, apart from it towards funeral
expenses Rs.25,000/-, loss of estate of Rs.5,000/- it comes to Rs.5,70,000/-.
When such is the case, what the Tribunal awarded of Rs.5,00,608/- is no way on
high side to interfere but for less to enhance, however for no power of the
Court in an appeal filed by the owner or driver or insurer to enhance the claim
of the claimants for want of cross-objections as laid down in Ranjana Prakash Vs.Divisional Manager[5].
8.Coming to rate of interest of
9% p.a. is high concerned, as observed by the Apex Court in D.D.A. Vs. Joginer S. Monga[6]
the appellate Court also can enhance or reduce the rate of interest within its
discretionary power to arrive reasonable rate and as per Section 171 of the Act
in TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya[7], and Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh[8] , taking into
consideration of the steep fall in the bank rate of interest, it was held the
interest at 7½% p.a. is reasonable, thus
while upholding at 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till date of award only
from the factual matrix of the case, the interest rate is reduced and modified at 7½% p.a. thereafter till
realization. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is
answered.
POINT -2:
9.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modified and reduced the rate
of interest from 9%p.a. to 7½% p.a. from date of award till realization. The appellant is directed to deposit
balance amount if at all due within one month from today, failing which the
claimants can execute and recover. There
is no order as to costs of the appeal.
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 19-12-2013
VVR
Note:
L.R. copy to be marked: Yes/No
