CMA/1218/2001 of APSRTC, represented by its General Managers Vs Anubolu Rajyalaxmi , Samrajyam, on 31 December 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the order dated 19-10-2000 in O.P.No.1016 of 1995 on the file of the Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), at Nizamabad whereinthe claim of the claim of the respondents 1 to 4 herein was allowedin part awarding compensation of Rs.3,10,000/-with proportionatecosts and interest from the date of the petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-Corporation. None appeared for the respondents-claimants.Perused the record.

3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a claim petitionseeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of thedeceased namely A.Shivareddy who died in a motor vehicleaccident that occurred on 4-8-1995.

4. 1[st] claimant is the wife, 2[nd] claimant is the son, 3[rd]and 4[th] claimants are parents of the deceased.

5. According to them, on that day, the deceased wasgoing on TVS Moped from Srinagar towards Nizamabad and atabout 7.30 P.M, near Khanapur at Kaloor cross road, one RTC Busbearing No.AP-9Z-2742 coming in the opposite direction in a rashand negligent manner dashed against the Moped, as a result ofwhich, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. Thedeceased was doing cultivation and was earning Rs.10,000/- permonth and was contributing the same to the family.

6. The appellants-Corporation filed counter opposingthe claim and denying the liability to pay compensation.

7. During enquiry, P.W 1 was examined and Exs.A.1to A.7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1-driver wasexamined and no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf ofthe appellants.

8. On a consideration of evidence available on record,the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash andnegligent driving of the bus driven by its driver-R.W.1. It is furtherobserved by the tribunal that the claimants are entitled to a totalcompensation of Rs.3,10,000/- with proportionate costs andinterest at 12% p.a., from the date of the petition. Aggrieved bythe same, the Corporation filed the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants-Corporationmainly contends that the deceased himself was responsible for theaccident as he was driving the moped in a rash and negligentmanner. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in takingthe income of the deceased on the tractor at Rs.3,000/- per monthwithout any basis of evidence. He would also further contend thatthe interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a., is excessive.

10. Regarding the accident, the evidence on recordwould show that on the date of accident, while the deceased was going on the TVS Moped from Srinagar towards Nizamabad side,one RTC bus was coming in the opposite direction fromNizamabad and the accident occurred at about 7.30 P.M., on themain road. The police registered FIR-Ex.A.1 against the driver ofthe bus and after due investigation, they filed a Charge sheet-Ex.A.5 against the driver. Ex.A.4-MV Inspector report shows thatthe accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle.

11. A perusal of the Criminal Court record woulddisclose that the accident occurred as driver of the bus swervedthe RTC Bus towards right side keeping on to the left side of theroad. The deceased was coming only on a moped from theopposite direction. There was ample opportunity for the driver ofthe bus to have noticed the approaching TVS Moped in theopposite direction. The driver of the RTC Bus had apparently nottaken any steps to avert the accident. The deceased was, in fact,only pillion rider on the scooter. On appreciation of the evidence,the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to rashand negligent driving of the driver as the bus was found to beproceeding by swerving towards right side which is a wrongdirection.

12. Under the above circumstances, the finding of theTribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligentdriving of the driver of the bus does not call for any interferenceand the evidence on record does not warrant any inference ofcontributory negligence on the part of the rider of the moped.

13. Regarding the claim of compensation, thedeceased was stated to be aged 40 years and as seen from theinquest report and Post Mortem Certificate, the deceased is statedto be having Ac.10.00 of land and also a tractor.

14. Admittedly, the land remained in-tact. Theclaimants if at all have suffered only on account of loss of supervision of cultivation by the deceased due to his untimelydeath. The tribunal has estimated the income of the deceased atRs.3,000/- per month from the tractor. There is nothing on recordto show that the deceased was hiring out the tractor or getting anyincome out of the same.

15. Under the above circumstances, the finding of theTribunal in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- permonth from the tractor remains baseless and unsubstantiated. Itis, therefore, considered that a sum of Rs.2,000/- per monthi.e.,Rs.24,000/- per annum can be taken into account towardsdamages for the loss of supervision of cultivation by thedeceased. The question of deducting 1/3[rd] towards personalexpenses therefrom doesn’t arise, inasmuch as the said amount isestimated towards loss of supervision but not as income derived. Applying the multiplier of 12 which is adopted by the Tribunal, theloss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/- x 12 = Rs.2,88,000/-which is awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of Rs.10,000/-awarded by the Tribunal towards non-pecuniary damages andRs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towardsfuneral expenses are quite reasonable. Thus, the total amount ofRs.3,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is held tobe just and reasonable.

16. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at12% p.a., is considered to be on the higher side. Having regard tothe market rate of interest, it is considered that the awardinginterest at 9% p.a., would meet the ends of justice.

17. In the circumstances, the claimants are heldentitled for compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- with interest at 9% p.a.,from the date of the petition.

18. In the result, subject to the above modification in respect of rate of interest, the appeal is dismissed. No order as tocosts.

Dated 31-12-2009.Dvs

_____________________________Justice G.V.SEETHAPATHY

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

C.M.A. No.1218 OF 2001Dated 31-12-2009