Telangana State Road Transport Corporation vs S Anitha

The State Road Transport Corporation of Telangana is the appellant and respondents No.1 to 6 are claimants and this appeal is filed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.2282 of 2015 by which an amount of Rs.18,22,760/- was awarded to the respondents/claimants against the appellant towards compensation for the death of one S.Vijay Kumar in a road accident.

Aggrieved by the award dated 31-08-2017, this appeal has been preferred on various grounds. The appellant has claimed that the Court below committed an error in awarding Rs.18,22,760/- with costs and interest against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- filed by the respondents/claimants under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1989. The appellants have claimed that the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the responsibility of accident to the bus driver and the Tribunal failed to frame an issue with regard to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is the case of appellant that there was negligence on the part of the deceased Cyclist who was riding the cycle in a negligent manner without noticing the other vehicles on the road. To prove the accident, the respondents/claimants have examined one G.Laxminarayana as PW.2, but his name was not shown as eye-witness to the accident in the charge sheet filed by the concerned police.

The appellant further claimed that there was no proper record to believe the contents of Ex.A6 supposed to be a salary certificate, but the Court below considered the said certificate and erred in taking income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month. It is also alleged in the grounds of appeal that though there is no proof about the age of the deceased, the Court below applied multiplier ‘14’ which is incorrect. Having placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC)”, the appellant has claimed that as per the above said Judgment, future prospects of the deceased, whose age was between 40 to 50 shall be considered as 25%, but the Court below added 30%, therefore, it shall be reduced. In addition to this, they have pleaded that the Tribunal committed error in awarding Rs.1,00,000/-towards consortium, Rs.3,75,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral charges and sought for setting aside the award.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if the contention of the respondents/claimants with regard to age of the deceased is believed between 40-50, future prospects must be 25%, but the Court below added 30%. It has also submitted that consortium must be Rs.40,000/-, but the court below awarded Rs.1,00,000/- and the other amounts awarded as loss of love and affection, funeral charges to be reconsidered, thereby, sought for setting aside the award. There is no representation for the respondents/claimants.

The above referred petition M.V.O.P.No.2282 of 2015 has been filed by the respondents herein for compensation on the ground that the deceased S.Vijay Kumar was the husband of respondent No.1, father of respondents No.2 to 4, the 6th respondent was his mother. It is the specific case of respondents that on 18.07.2015 at about 4.00 a.m., while the deceased was going towards his house on his by-cycle, and when he reached the area near Kaloji Sainik School, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad, the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 1031, while driving his bus in a rash and negligent manner, in a high speed, dashed the cycle of the deceased, due to which he fell down, suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. The respondents have claimed that the deceased was 42 years old, he was a private employee i.e., security guard and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, they sought for Rs.10,00,000/- on various heads. The appellant herein disputed the claim, filed counter disputing the material averments. However, the Court below accepted the contention of respondents and awarded Rs.18,22,760/- as compensation.

In the light of the appeal grounds filed by the appellant and argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the points for consideration in this appeal are :

Whether the Court below awarded excess amount towards compensation, thereby, the award is liable to be set aside ?

Whether the compensation amount can be reduced as contended by the appellant ?

There is no dispute about the accident in which the deceased S.Vijay Kumar died. It may be a fact that the name of PW.2 is not figured as eye-witness in the charge sheet. PW.2 has been examined at the instance of respondents/claimants. He has categorically deposed about the accident. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant herein and nothing could be elicited to believe that he was deposing falsehood. Even though, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was contributory negligence by the deceased, there is no oral or documentary evidence in support of the said contention and appellant herein did not examine any witness to establish that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased.

The respondents have pleaded that deceased was working as private security guard and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In support of the said claim, they have examined one T.Rajender as PW.3 and marked Ex.A6. PW.3 admitted that he did not maintain any Provident Fund and ESI records, he deposed about employment of deceased as security guard. He did not produce any proof to believe that, really there is such a security service and he was paying Rs.15,000/- per month to the deceased. Had there been such a security service and PW.3 was paying Rs.15,000/- per month, it may not be difficult for the respondents to secure some evidence. Therefore, the Court below did not accept the evidence of PW.3.

However, in view of the age of the deceased and number of family members who were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased, the Court below considered his income as Rs.8,000/- per month. The Court below added 30% of the said income as future prospects. But as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, it must be 25% in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) case. Therefore, the same shall be reduced by 5%.

The Court below did not accept the contention of the respondent No.5, who was younger brother of the deceased was dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. He was a private employee, therefore, he cannot be considered as dependent of the deceased. The Court below awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium to the wife of the deceased, a part from awarding Rs.1,00,000/- each to his children. In the above referred Judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra) case, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that more than a sum of Rs.40,000/- cannot be awarded under this head, thereby, petitioners No.1 to 4 and 6 are entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and they are also entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenditure.

Therefore, respondents/claimants i.e, wife, children and mother of deceased are entitled for Rs.55,000/-each apart from Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses. Even if 10% is added for every three years, they are entitled to additional amount of Rs.7,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and consortium. The income of deceased is assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month, if 25% is added as future prospects it is Rs.2,000/- thereby, Rs.10,000/- per month. Since the family consisting five members, 1/4th shall be deducted. So the monthly contribution is Rs.7,500/- per month and Rs.90,000/-relevant multiplier is ‘14’– Rs.90,000/- x 14 = Rs.12,60,000/-. Respondents/claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- each on other heads, Rs.77,000/- x 5 = Rs.3,85,000/-. Therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled to Rs.16,45,000/-(12,60,000/- = 3,85,000/-).

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the compensation from 18,22,760/- to 16,45,000/-. The apportionment shall be adjusted in proportion accordingly.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.