A.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr vs K.Hemalatha & Ors

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court disposing of several appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the `Act'). Appeals were filed 1 by the claimants as well as the present appellant-Corporation and its functionaries. By the impugned judgment the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the claimant while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation. One K. Lingam lost his life purportedly in a vehicle accident. His widow and the minor children claimed compensation. Similarly his widow Smt. K. Hemlatha also claimed compensation for about Rs.8,00,000/- while the injured claimant in respect of the same accident claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was the case of the claimants that on 19.3.1998 the deceased and injured claimant in O.P. No.878 of 1998 were proceeding on motor bike bearing No. AP.10J 5350 towards Yadagirigutta and when they reached the RTC bus depot at Yadagirigutta, bus bearing No. AP 9Z 3972 belong to APSRTC, came from back side and dashed the motorcycle. In the said accident, the deceased and claimant suffered grievous injuries. At first instance, both were admitted in Government Hospital, Bhongir and thereafter they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Considering the serious condition of the 2 deceased he was shifted to CDR Hospital, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to injuries on 24.3.1998. On a complaint lodged to the police, a case in Crime No.16 of 1998 was registered on the file of the Police Station, Yadagirigutta. It was the further case of the claimants that the deceased was a Class-I contractor and was an income tax assessee and was doing high magnitude civil contracts. Pleading that due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased, they lost dependency, they claimed compensation which included non- pecuniary damages on account of loss of estate, and loss of consortium. So far O.P. No. 878 of 1998 is concerned, the same was filed by the wife of the deceased who was also injured in the same accident, claiming compensation on account of medical expenditure, pain and suffering and disability. The said claim was resisted by the appellant Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short the `Corporation') by filing counter affidavit before the Tribunal. It was the case and it was their specific case that the bus did not hit the motor bike. Further, it was their case that on seeing the speeding bus the deceased himself got 3 puzzled and skidded off the road; as such, the deceased and claimant suffered injuries. Precisely, it was the case of the Corporation that the bus of the Corporation did not hit the motor bike at all; as such, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus of the Corporation, to claim compensation from it.

3. The Tribunal in the two claim petition framed issues. After taking note of the evidence on record, it was held that the deceased was aged of 41 years, his earning was about Rs.5,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses the contribution to the family was around Rs.3,400/- p.m. The annual contribution was Rs.40,800/. After applying multiplier of 11, compensation of Rs.4,48,800/- was awarded. Additionally, a sum of Rs.70,000/- for medical expenses, transportation charges, funeral expenses and the like was awarded. In other words in respect of claim for the death of the deceased Rs.5,18,800/- was fixed as the amount of compensation. But since the Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence, 1/3rd deduction was made. Interest 4 at the rate of 12% was awarded, from the date of claim. In the petition in respect of injuries a sum of Rs.25,000/- was awarded but after making deduction of 1/3rd the amount was fixed as Rs.16,666/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

13. Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. The proportion in which the payment to the claimants have to be made shall be the same as was fixed by the Tribunal.