WP/32795/2010 of The Depot Manager Vs The Permanant Lok Adalat on 30 December 2010

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.32795 OF 2010ST DATED 31DECEMBER, 2010

BETWEEN

The Depot Manager, APSRTC,Gajuwaka Depot,Visakhapatnam.

And Another. … Petitioners

And

The Permanent Lok AdalatAt Visakhapatnam,Rep. by its Chairman.

And Others. … Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMARWRIT PETITION NO.32795 OF 2010

ORDER: (Per SK,J)

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation(APSRTC) calls in question the Award dated 10.02.2010 passed bythe Permanent Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam, in Permanent Lok AdalatCase No.1609 of 2007, whereby it was directed to pay a sum ofRs.6,50,000/- to respondents 2 to 6 herein with interest at 7.5% perannum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.

The APSRTC’s bus bearing No.AP-10Z-6661 was involved inan accident while plying en route Gajuwaka to Mangalagiri on08.01.2007. Thereby, the pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-31S-7369, M.Rama Krishna, met with his death. Respondents 2 to 6herein, being his legal representatives approached the Permanent LokAdalat at Visakhapatnam by way of the subject case claimingcompensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

The Permanent Lok Adalat relied upon the account of anindependent eye witnesses, P.W.3, who stated that the bus in questionwas proceeding ahead of him on the fateful day and was driven in arash and negligent manner at high speed. According to him, when thebus tried to overtake the motorcycle in front of it, it dashed against thesame resulting in the motorcyclist and the pillion rider falling on theroad. The rear wheel of the bus was stated to have run over the pillionrider causing severe injuries on his stomach. This witness was an uninterested and detached witness and his testimony was notdiscredited in any manner. Therefore, the Permanent Lok Adalatplaced reliance on the same and concluded that the bus was driven ina rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident.

The deceased pillion rider was a Travel Agent. The Proprietorof his Travel Agency was examined as P.W.2. He marked Ex.A.6salary certificate demonstrating that the deceased was earningRs.6,000/- per month. Taking into account the deceased’s age of 27years and his salary particulars, the Lok Adalat applied the multiplier of17 and awarded compensation of Rs.6,12,000/- towards loss ofdependency. In addition thereto, it also granted Rs.15,000/- towardsloss of estate, Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- tothe widow towards loss of consortium. In all, the compensationamounted to Rs.6,50,000/-. Interest was awarded thereon at Rs.7.5%per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The LokAdalat also apportioned the awarded compensation amongst the legalrepresentatives, taking due care to protect the interests of the minordaughters of the deceased.

Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for theAPSRTC, contended that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam,ought not to have adjudicated the dispute involving complicated factsand ought to have directed the parties to approach the competent CivilCourt. He contended that the Lok Adalat failed to take cognizance ofthe APSRTC’s plea that there was contributory negligence on the partof the motorcyclist and therefore, the compensation ought to have beenproportionately reduced. He further contended that as a Travel Agent,the deceased was not assured of regular income and therefore the LokAdalat ought not to have relied upon the salary certificate. He disputedthe quantum of the amounts awarded towards loss of estate and lossof consortium on the ground that they were on the higher side.

Having given due consideration to the contentions urged by thelearned standing counsel, we find ourselves unable to agree with any of them.

Section 22-C(8) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987empowers the Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate and decide thedispute if the parties fail to reach an agreement. That being so, it wasnot necessary for the Permanent Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam, to directthe parties to approach the competent Civil Court.

Having undertaken the exercise of deciding the matter, thePermanent Lok Adalat, Visakhapatnam, placed reliance on thetestimony of P.W.3 in so far as the accident was concerned as he wasan independent eye witness and his deposition stood unshaken. Wefind no error on the part of the Permanent Lok Adalat in accepting andacting upon his account of what had happened on the fateful day. Itmay be noted that the deceased was the pillion rider and no evidencewas let in to show that there was any contributory negligence either onhis part or on the part of the motorcyclist. The deposition of P.W.3 wasthat the bus driver was himself at fault as he was driving at high speed.

In so far as the computation of compensation is concerned, thedeposition of P.W.2, the employer of the deceased, and the salarycertificate Ex.A.6 stood unshaken. Basing on the same, the PermanentLok Adalat quantified the compensation. We do not find thecompensation so arrived at or the amounts awarded by the Lok Adalattowards loss of estate and loss of consortium to be excessive or high.

Viewed from any angle, the Award of the Permanent LokAdalat, Visakhapatnam, does not warrant interference by this Court inexercise of certiorari jurisdiction.

The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissedat the admission stage. In the circumstances, there shall be no orderas to costs.

_______________________

GODA RAGHURAM, J.

31[ST] DECEMBER, 2010.VGSR

____________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J.