Telangana High Court
CMA/823/2003 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Bera Nageswara Rao on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.823 of 2003 And CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.3907 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the second respondent-insurance company against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajahmundry, in O.P.No.151/2000,
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY
C.M.A.No.823 of 2003AndCROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.3907 of 2003
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the secondrespondent-insurance company against the judgment and decreeof the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajahmundry, inO.P.No.151/2000, dated 23.10.2002.
2. Heard.
3. The brief facts are as follows:
On 14.02.2000 at about 5.30 p.m. when the deceased (BeraVenkata Arun Kumar) was proceeding on his cycle towardsGokavaram Bus stand, at Mulagoyyi Centre, the driver of the bushad driven the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9 Z 5688 in a rash andnegligent manner and dashed the cycle, on account of that thedeceased fell down and rear wheels of the bus ran over his headresulting his instantaneous death. According to the petitioners,who are the parents of the deceased, the deceased was agedabout 24 years and working as teacher earning around Rs.3,000/-to Rs.4,000/- per month. They claimed compensation ofRs.4,00,000/-. First respondent remained ex parte and the secondrespondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. filed counter denying the petitionaverments.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues wereframed:
1. Whether Bera Venkata Arun Kumar died in the roadaccident occurred on 14.02.2000 at 5.10 p.m.
opposite to Pervathi Padmavathi Theatre, MulagoyyiCentre, Rajahmundry due to the rash and negligentdriving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5688 bythe first respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anycompensation? If so, to what amount and fromwhom?
3. To what relief?
5. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examinedand Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents,R.W.1 was examined. On the basis of the material on record, thecourt below granted compensation of Rs.2,72,000/-. Aggrieved bythe same, the present appeal is filed by the second respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. and aggrieved by the rejection of the remainingamount of compensation claimed, the claimants have preferredcross-objections.
6. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are anygrounds to enhance the compensation?
7. The deceased was a post-graduate in commerce. Hewas said to be earning around Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. He was aged 24 years and he died in the year 2000. He hadqualification in computers also. By passage of time, he wouldhave definitely earned substantial amount, but as approximateincome of the deceased has to be fixed, it can be at least taken atRs.4,000/- per month. Out of that if 50% has to be deductedtowards personal expenses as per the decision of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORTCORPORATION[[1]]his contribution to the family can be taken atRs.2,000/- and on the basis of the age of his mother, which is saidto be around 45 years, however, as there is no authentic material, I am inclined to apply multiplier ‘13’ treating her age as around 46years. In that event, the petitioners would be entitled to thecompensation of Rs.3,12,000/- towards loss of dependency andanother Rs.13,000/- can be granted under other heads. Thus, thetotal compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- can be awarded to thepetitioners.
8. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed and the cross-objections are partly allowed enhancing the compensation fromRs.2,72,000/- to Rs.3,25,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amountof compensation shall be at 6% per annum. No order as to costs.
30[th] December 2010,Rns
______________________
P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.
[1](2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121(2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121