IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD MACMANos.727 of 2005 and Cross objections, 745 of 2005, 776 of 2005, 800 of 2005 and Cross objections, 964 of 2005 and Cross objections and 2123 of 2005 M.A.C.M.A.No.727 of 2005 Between: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Keshireddy Shankunthala .. Respondent Cross objections in M.A.C.M.A.No.727 of 2005 Between: Keshireddy Shankunthala ….. Cross objectors And: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .. Appellant M.A.C.M.A.No.745 of 2005 Between: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Devarajula Sarojana and 3 others .. Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.776 of 2005 Between: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Pochammala Swaroopa and 2 others .. Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.800 of 2005 Between: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Keshireddy Shankunthala and another .. Respondents Cross objections in M.A.C.M.A.No.800 of 2005 Between: Keshireddy Shankunthala and another ….. Cross objectors And: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .. Appellant M.A.C.M.A.No.964 of 2005 Between: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Pochammala Swaroopa .. Respondent Cross objections in M.A.C.M.A.No.964 of 2005 Between: P. Swaroopa ….. Cross objectors And: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .. Appellant M.A.C.M.A.No.2123 of 2005 Between: APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND P. Swaroopa .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: These six appeals are directed against the common award in M.V.O.P.No.482 of 2003 and batch of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, dated 16- 11-2004. The factual background for the appeals is that the deceased and injured involved in the 11 cases were travelling by auto AP 36- U-3483 to go to Karunapuram on 22-02-2003 and in front of the Veterinary Hospital at Malkapur village, APSRTC bus AP-10-Z 4185, driven rashly and negligently, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the auto killing some on the spot and severely injured others. The survivors were treated in M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal and the dependants of the deceased or the injured respectively filed the respective claim petitions claiming compensation from the APSRTC, the sole respondent/appellant herein. The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.815 of 2003 claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the multiple injuries received by her. The claimants in O.P.No.411 of 2003 are the wife, son and parents of Saraiah, an auto driver, who was driving the ill-fated auto and who died on the spot. They claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and claimed a compensation of Rs.4,30,000/-. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.816 of 2003 are the wife and children of Kistaiah, who died in the accident and who was claimed to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month from agriculture at the age of 30 years. They claimed a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.813 of 2003 are the wife and son of the deceased Janardhan Reddy, who died in the accident and who was claimed to be earning Rs.4,500/- per month from agriculture and business at the age of 55 years. They claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.814 of 2003 is the mother of a 7 month old infant, who died in the accident and she claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The claimant in M.V.O.P.No.811 of 2003 claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received by her. These claims in these six cases and 5 other cases were resisted by the appellant herein by filing a common counter claiming that the bus was in fact stopped after it reached Malkapur school turning, but the auto driven rashly and negligently itself dashed against the bus and turned turtle. The Corporation claimed that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the bus driver. But a case was filed against the bus driver by managing the police. As the accident occurred only due to the fault of the auto driver, the Corporation disputed its liability to pay any compensation, while it also disputed the nature of injuries, the nature of treatment, earning capacity of the deceased and the dependants of the claimants in respect of all the cases. The Corporation, hence, desired all the claims to be negatived. The Tribunal framed common issues in all the claim petitions, which were clubbed and tried together with the evidence being recorded in O.P.No.482 of 2003. The issues covered the responsibility for the accident, the ages and incomes of the deceased, the entitlement of each claimant to any compensation and the quantum of compensation. PWs.1 to 7 and RW.1 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.34 and Ex.B.1 were marked during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned common award firstly noting that the evidence of the eye witnesses disclosed that due to the APSRTC bus, driven rashly and negligently, dashing against the auto, the accident had occurred. The Tribunal referred to the evidence of the bus driver as RW.1 and Ex.B.1 newspaper report relied on by him and opined that Ex.B.1 might have been on the information furnished by the bus driver himself and it also observed that there is no reason as to why the conductor had asked the driver to stop the bus at the relevant time as claimed by RW.1. The investigation by the statutory investigating agency resulting in prosecution of the bus driver was also taken note of and hence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred only due to the fault of the driver of the bus. Insofar as the claim in M.V.O.P.No.815 of 2003 is concerned, the petitioner therein was examined as PW.7 and the Tribunal noted from Ex.A.28-injury certificate, Ex.A.30-Discharge Card and Ex.A.33-Case Sheet that she received fracture to right 1/3rd femur, left 1/3rd radius and a simple injury on the frontal region for which PW.7 was treated first at M.G.M. Hospital and then at NIMS, Hyderabad. As PW.7 was not shown to have suffered any disability due to the injuries, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and attendant charges making a total of Rs.90,000/-. Concerning M.V.O.P.No.411 of 2003, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW.5 and she claimed that her husband, the deceased auto driver, aged 43 years, was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. In the absence of proof of his income, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.1500/- per month and considered the contribution to the family to be Rs.1000/- per month. Applying a multiplier of 13, the Tribunal considered the total loss of dependency to be Rs.1,56,000/- and it also granted Rs.15,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium making a total of Rs.1,86,000/-. The 1st petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.816 of 2003 was examined as PW.6, who claimed that her deceased husband aged 30 years was earning Rs.3,000/- per month from agriculture. In the absence of proof of the agricultural activity, the Tribunal took his income as Rs.1200/- per month as a labourer and on an assessed contribution of Rs.800/- per month to the family, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 17 for the age of 30 years and assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.1,63,200/-. In addition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards non-pecuniary damages and loss of consortium making a total of Rs.1,93,200/-. Concerning M.V.O.P.No.813 of 2003, the 1st petitioner examined as PW.7 claimed her husband aged 55 years to be earning Rs.4,500/- per month. In the absence of any proof, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.1,000/- per month and the contribution to the family at Rs.700/- per month. Applying a multiplier of 8 for the age of 55 years, the Tribunal assessed the total loss of dependency at Rs.67,200/- apart from granting Rs.15,000/- each towards non-pecuniary damages and loss of consortium. The Tribunal rounded off the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-. In M.V.O.P.No.814 of 2003, the petitioner was examined as PW.6 and the Tribunal considered it just to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the death of her tender aged child, which would have been even a minimum under no fault liability. Insofar as M.V.O.P.No.811 of 2003 is concerned, the petitioner was again examined as PW.6, who claimed to have received fracture on right ankle and three other simple injuries in the eyes, left thigh and elbow. Though she filed Ex.A.20-injury certificate, in the absence of proof of any hospitalization or disability, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation on all counts. The Tribunal granted interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs on the compensation awarded in all the cases and gave directions on the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation in the respective cases. The respondent Corporation filed all these appeals claiming that the negligence of the auto driver carrying 14 passengers and driving the auto rashly and negligently were ignored attributing negligence only to the bus driver. The compensation was awarded in the respective claims even without any evidence of the deceased or injured travelling in the auto. The evidence of RW.1 should have been acted upon to presume contributory negligence on the part of the auto driver. The appellant also contended in different cases that the assessment of monthly income, age and damages was not in accordance with the evidence on record or principles of law. The Corporation also claimed the claims to be bad for non-joinder of the insurer of auto, while the deceased auto driver himself was the owner. The appellant, therefore, desired the impugned awards to be reversed. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.815 of 2003 filed cross- objections in M.A.C.M.A.No.727 of 2005 claiming that they ought to have been compensated for transport, loss of income and medical expenses based on the evidence on record and the entire claim ought to have been allowed. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.813 of 2003 filed cross- objections in MACMA.No.800 of 2005 contending that the multiplier should have been 11 for the age of 55 years and income should have been accepted as Rs.4,500/- per month. Funeral expenses, loss of estate etc., were not awarded and hence, they desired the balance compensation claimed also to be granted. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.814 of 2003 also filed their cross-objections in MACMA.No.964 of 2005 claiming that the monthly income and loss of income ought to have been accepted as claimed and loss of expectation of life, pain and suffering and loss of consortium etc., should have been calculated and a proper multiplier should have been adopted. Hence, they desired the balance compensation to be awarded. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation, Sri Ghan Shyam Das Mandhani, learned counsel for the claimants in MACMA No.745 of 2005 and Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants in the other appeals are heard. The point for consideration in these appeals and the cross objections are,-- 1) Whether the bus driver alone could have been considered to be responsible for the accident with his rash and negligent driving? 2) What is the just and adequate compensation to which the claimants in different cases are entitled? Point No.1: Even in the earliest version Ex.A.1-FIR, the de facto complainant clearly alleged that the APSRTC bus came in high speed driven negligently and dashed against the auto and the information was given to the police within about an hour after the accident. Ex.A.2-Remand Case Diary shows that the statutory investigating agency, after examining the eye-witnesses and collecting all possible circumstantial evidence, had opined the bus driver alone to be guilty of rashness and negligence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC. Accordingly, the police prosecuted the bus driver before the competent Criminal Court as seen from Ex.A.21. The bus driver as RW.1 attempted to claim to have stopped the bus on the extreme left side of the road at the instance of the conductor at which time the auto with 14 passengers driven rashly and negligently in high speed came in the opposite direction and dashed against the bus. He claimed to have reported the matter to the police and relied on newspaper reports like Ex.B.1 in support of his version. However, he had to admit that the police prosecuted him and not the auto driver and no case was registered on his complaint. Except his self-serving claims, there is no proof of his having given a complaint to the police soon after the accident and Ex.B.1-newspaper report cannot be preferred than the other circumstances disclosed by the documentary evidence above referred to. While all the eye witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants unanimously corroborated in attributing the rashness and negligence to the bus driver, merely because their evidence is tainted with interestedness, the same need not be disbelieved in the light of the corroboration afforded by Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.21. The conclusion of the Tribunal, which also had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, that the fault of the bus driver alone caused the accident, therefore, is not susceptible to any interference in these appeals. Point No.2: The claim in MVOP.No.815 of 2003 is towards the injuries received by PW.7 in the accident. She produced the medical bills relating to the treatment at NIMS, Hyderabad including for the medicines purchased etc., to a tune of Rs.61,164.80 ps. and she similarly produced further bills relating to such treatment to a tune of Rs.2,485/-. This expenditure of about Rs.63,650/- approximately does not appear to be suspicious for any reason. PW.7 also produced the Case Sheet of Global Hospitals, Hyderabad about the treatment given to her since 28-02-2004 for worsening of sensory symptoms and development of stiffness at the places of the injuries and the suggested plan of treatment was medication, physiotherapy etc., for which a consultation fee of Rs.175/- was charged, which is included in the above amounts. Again the Hospitals appears to have examined PW.7 on 27-7-2004 and to have estimated the cost of future treatment and surgical intervention at Rs.87,000/- and PW.7 did not claim and no evidence was produced that in fact such a treatment was taken. The injured might have further incurred expenses towards transport, attendant charges, extra nourishment and other inevitable expenses and to the extent of the proved medical expenses and such other miscellaneous expenses, in addition to Rs.50,000/- already granted, a further sum of Rs.20,000/- can be considered just and adequate. The sum of Rs.40,000/- granted towards pain and suffering in respect of the injuries cannot be considered too low in respect of two fractures and one simple injury and any other pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages can be considered to have been taken care of by the total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- being awarded now. The compensation granted in M.V.O.P.No.411 of 2003 is Rs.1,86,000/- in respect of the death of the auto driver, aged 43 years and the Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.1500/- and contribution to the wife, son and parents at Rs.1000/- per month. Even the minimum wages payable under the relevant statute were not taken into account by the Tribunal in limiting the loss of dependency at such level and the Corporation cannot complain of assessment of compensation when even non-earning persons are considered to be earning Rs.15,000/- per annum by the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.816 of 2003 is Rs.1,93,200/- in respect of the death of the husband of PW.6, who was aged 30 years and his income also was considered to be equal with that of a labourer at Rs.1200/- per month by the Tribunal, which would have been much more had the Tribunal referred to the Minimum Wages fixed for an unskilled labourer under the Minimum Wages Act at the relevant time. The assessment of compensation or grant of Rs.15,000/- towards non- pecuniary damages and loss of consortium cannot, therefore, be considered to be ex facie unreasonable further keeping in view that the young deceased left a younger wife, a minor daughter and minor son to be taken care of. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.813 of 2003 were awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Tribunal and they sought for enhancement of the said sum in their cross-objections. PW.7, the wife of the deceased, in her evidence claimed her husband Janardhan Reddy, aged 55 years, to be an agriculturist and a petty businessman earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The claimants were not subjected to any cross-examination concerning the occupation and income of the deceased, except that no documents were filed by PW.7 in that regard. The Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.12,000/- per annum at a sum less by Rs.3,000/- than even the notional income adopted by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of non- earning persons. The deceased could not have been idle without pursuing any avocation when he had to maintain himself and his wife and son and even if there is no positive evidence of the extent of his agricultural activity or business, considering the notional income adopted by the Second Schedule for non-earning persons and the minimum wages payable even to unskilled labourers, his income could have been assessed at a minimum of Rs.2,000/- per month and if so, the loss of dependency of the family assessed by the Tribunal should be doubled and on this count alone, the claimants would be entitled to a further sum of Rs.67,200/- on the application of multiplier 8. However, as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1], the appropriate multiplier would have 11 and if so, there should be a further addition of Rs.50,400/- to the compensation already awarded making a total of Rs.1,17,400/- to be enhanced under this head. The Tribunal had already awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of consortium and other non-pecuniary damages, which is higher than what has been recognized in Sarla Verma v. Delihi Transport Corporation (stated supra) and there need be no further additions on any of these counts. Therefore, rounding off the enhanced compensation to Rs.1,20,000/- will result in grant of just and adequate compensation to the claimants in this case. Insofar as the compensation awarded in MVOP.No.814 of 2003 is concerned, the claimant sought for enhancement in her cross-objections for the death of her tender aged child. Exs.A.24 and A.25 show the child aged 7 months to have perished in the accident. The claimant-mother as PW.6 stated that her deceased child was her only son and she lost her husband also in the same accident. She thus cannot be considered to be having any reasonable prospects of begetting children in future and she became a destitute without her husband and son. Her claim for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of the death of her son under all heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages could not have been considered high by any reasonable assessment and merely because the child was of tender age, ends of justice could not have been met by granting a meagre sum of Rs.50,000/- as considered by the Tribunal. When the Tribunal itself noted that a sum of Rs.50,000/- would have been granted even under no fault liability, claiming Rs.1,00,000/- under fault liability cannot be excessive and the claim has to be accepted, more so, when the destitute life of PW.6 with the loss of her child and husband could not have been estimated in monetary terms and she could not have been placed in her earlier happy situation of life by any means of compensation. In M.V.O.P.No.811 of 2003, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained as it felt that the two fractures and other simple injuries were not shown to have hospitalized or to have resulted in any disability. Such a sum of Rs.15,000/- probably would have been claimed by the claimant for mere medical expenses or for pain and suffering and she would have probably got more compensation had she also challenged the quantum before this Court. However, she did not prefer any appeal or cross appeal or cross objections and therefore, there is absolutely no reason to further reduce the nominal compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In the result, all the appeals should fail, while the cross objections in the three cases should succeed in part. Insofar as the enhanced portion of the compensation is concerned, in view of length of time for which the Corporation has to pay interest on the same, the same can be limited to 6% p.a., while proportionate costs of course, shall follow suit. In the result, MACMANos.727, 745, 776, 800, 964 and 2123 of 2005 are dismissed without costs. Cross-objections in MACMA.No.727 of 2005 are allowed in part without costs and the compensation awarded by the impugned common award is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of MVOP.No.815 of 2003 till the date of payment and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The cross-objections in MACMA.No.800 of 2005 are allowed in part without costs and the compensation already awarded is enhanced by a further sum of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of MVOP.No.813 of 2003 till the date of payment and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. The cross-objections MACMA.No.964 of 2005 are allowed without costs and the compensation already awarded is further enhanced by Rs.50,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of MVOP.No.814 of 2003 till the date of payment and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award. No further directions are being given regarding disbursement of compensation at this distance of time in the three matters in which enhancement is ordered and the apportionment of the enhanced compensation in MVOPNo.813 of 2003 shall be in the same proportion between the claimants as ordered in the impugned award. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 8-12-2010 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298