CMA/4540/2004 of The A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep., by its Vs Danthala Pichaiah, on 31 December 2014

J U D G M E N T:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent under Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), aggrievedby the order, dated 21.06.2004, passed by the Chairman, MotorVehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, in O.P.No.1475of 2000, awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-

2. Respondent Nos.1 & 2/petitioners filed the above O.P underSections 166 & 140 of the Act, claiming compensation ofRs.1,50,000/- on account of the death of Nagamani (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident, thatoccurred on 25.08.2000.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will bereferred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition.

4. The brief averments made in the petition are that on25.08.2000 at about 8:00 p.m, the deceased along with her relativeswere going in a Tractor bearing No.AP.7U.4161 from Bethavolu inorder to go to Alagadapa village, to attend a marriage function. Onthe way when it reached to the outskirts of Garidepally village, oneRTC bus bearing No.AP.10Z.6388 belonging to the respondent,came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashedthe tractor and trailor, as a result of which, the deceased receivedgrievous injuries and died. Police, Garidepally police stationregistered the case in Cr.No.54 of2000 for the offences punishableunder Sections 337 & 304-A IPC against the driver of the R.T.C.bus. The deceased was hale and healthy and she was aged about15 years and she was studying at the time of accident. Petitionersbeing the parents of the deceased had so many hopes on her and her death cannot be measured by any amounts. Therefore, prayedthe Court to grant compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensationagainst the respondent.

5. The brief averments made in the counter, filed by therespondent are as follows:

The respondent put the petitioners to prove the manner ofaccident, age and income of the deceased and denied that thedriver of the R.T.C. bus was rash and negligent while driving thevehicle and finally stated that the compensation claimed by thepetitioners is high and excessive and prayed the Court to dismissthe petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues andto substantiate the claim, the petitioners got examined PWs.1 & 2and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 on their behalf. On behalf of therespondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, theTribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligentdriving of the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP.10Z.6388 andawarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest at 9%p.a to the petitioners against the respondent.

8. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, therespondent preferred the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ respondentargued that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation and theaccident occurred due to contributory negligence of both thevehicles; that the tractor, in which the deceased was travellingbeing a goods carrier, the appellant is not liable to paycompensation and relied upon the case law reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Nokhey Lal Singh & another[[1]], wherein it is held at paras 1 & 2 as follows:

“1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in M.A.Petition No. 501 of 1998, by an award dated 25.10.1999,has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to a minor of10 years, who met an accident with truck No. HR 13-G-0190. The accident had taken place on 7.7.1998 at about3 p.m. on G.T. Road, when the deceased while crossingthe road met with fatal accident. The factum of accidenthas been held to be proved by the Tribunal, on the basisof F.I.R., post-mortem report and the statements of thewitnesses, namely, Ramchandra Vishwakarma andNokhey Lal Singh. The Tribunal has also held that thevehicle was properly insured and there was a subsistingpolicy at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has furtherheld that the driver possessed a valid driving licence andthe vehicle was having proper registration certificate andpermit to ply the vehicle. The Tribunal has recorded thefinding that the vehicle was being rashly and negligentlydriven by the driver of the vehicle which is borne out frommaterial on record and the said finding does not call forany interference. Insofar as the question of compensationis concerned, the same also appears to be just andproper, inasmuch as, under the Second Scheduleappended to the Act, a minimum compensation of Rs.1,50,000 has been provided even if the claimant had noincome.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that theamount of Rs. 1,50,000 is on higher side as the boy of 10years had no earnings. In view of the amount ofcompensation being provided in the Schedule and theobject of the Act being to be liberal while awardingcompensation to the claimants of the deceased, we are ofthe opinion that the amount fixed by the Tribunal does notappear to be unreasonable and unjustified. We do not findany illegality and infirmity in the award, as concluded bythe Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

Further, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that theTribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a to the respondents/ petitionersand therefore, it has to be reduced in view of the settled laws andprayed the Court to allow the appeal.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing forrespondents/petitioners argued that the deceased was aged about15 years and studying Intermediate at the time of accident; that thedriver of the RTC bus was rash and negligent and due to hisnegligence, the accident occurred; that the Tribunal after considering the evidence on record rightly granted just andreasonable compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and the findings of theTribunal needs no interference and relied upon the case lawreported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Satender &

Others[[2]], wherein it is held as follows:

“9. ….. The determination of damages for loss ofhuman life is an extremely difficult task and it becomes allthe more baffling when the deceased is a child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is uncertain. Where thedeceased was a child, he was earning nothing but had aprospect to earn. The question of assessment ofcompensation, therefore, becomes stiffer. The figure ofcompensation in such cases involves a good deal ofguesswork. In cases, where parents are claimants, relevantfactor would be age of parents.

11. This Court in Lata Wadhwa's case (supra) whilecomputing compensation made distinction betweendeceased children falling within the age group of 5 to 10years and age group of 10 to 15 years.

12. In cases of young children of tender age, in view ofuncertainties abound, neither their income at the time ofdeath nor the prospects of the future increase in their incomenor chances of advancement of their career are capable ofproper determination on estimated basis. The reason is thatat such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to theiracademic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafteradvancement in life are so many that nothing can beassumed with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither theincome of the deceased child is capable of assessment onestimated basis nor the financial loss suffered by the parentsis capable of mathematical computation.”

and prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.

11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learnedcounsel appearing for both parties, the points which are to bedecided in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the appellant/respondent is entitled toreduce the rate of interest awarded by theTribunal or not?reduce the rate of interest awarded by theTribunal or not?

2. Whether the compensation granted by theTribunal is just and reasonable or not?Tribunal is just and reasonable or not?

12. POINTS 1 & 2: There is no dispute of the fact that the accident occurred on 25.08.2000 at about 8:00 p.m, due to the rashand negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus bearingNo.AP.10Z.6388, in which the deceased, who was aged about 15years, received grievous injuries and died.

13. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation awarded by theTribunal to the petitioners is concerned, the Tribunal afterconsidering the evidence on record awarded compensation ofRs.1,50,000/-. Though the learned counsel for the appellantcontended that the compensation awarded is excessive, during thecourse of arguments, learned counsel only conceded for reducingthe rate of interest. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal regardingthe question of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of thedeceased needs no interference.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunalawarded interest at 9% p.a to the respondents/ petitioners andtherefore, it has to be reduced in view of the settled laws.

15. In Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others v. Ahmedabad [3]Municipal Transport Service, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtawarded interest at 7.5% p.a. I n Rebeka Minz and others v.Divisional Manager, United India Limited Insurance Company[4]Limited and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court awardedinterest at 7% p.a.

16. Thus, in view of the different rate of interests granted by theApex Court in the judgments cited above, I am of the consideredview that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is excessiveand it is a fit case to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5%p.a.

17. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part, reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date ofrealisation. So far with regard to the quantum of compensationawarded by the Tribunal, it needs no interference and therefore, it isunaltered. The appellant/ respondent is directed to deposit theamount awarded to the respondents/petitioners within three monthsfrom the date of this order. No order as to costs.

18. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shallstand closed.

Date: .12.2014

sr

_____________

ANIS, J

[1]2002 ACJ 459[2]AIR 2007 SC 324

[3]MANU/SC/1005/2013[4]2012 ACJ 2328