Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARASIMHA REDDY
APSRTC REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, VIJAYAWADA - Appellant
Versus
CHANGANTIPATI VENKATESHWARAMMA - Respondent
Decided On : 09/25/2006
CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) 22056 Of 2003
Motor Vehicle – Employment and Service matter – Accident have hit the Moped – Death – Compensation granted – Sought for enhancement of compensation – Deceased- employed as Head constable, and was working in office of Commissioner of police, when he was proceeding on his moped (Lune) from Bandar Locks to Police Station, a bus owned by APSRTC, is said to have hit the Moped from behind – Deceased died on account of the injuries received by him. Crime was registered against the driver of the bus, by the II Town Traffic Police Station, Vijayawada – Wife and three minor children of deceased filed M. V. O. P. in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional district Judge, claiming compensation – Counsel for appellants submits accident occurred solely on account of carelessness on part of deceased, and Tribunal had brushed aside evidence of RW-1, driver of bus, without any basis – He contends that evidence of PW-2 is doubtful and that it ought not to have been accepted – Counsel assails quantum of compensation as well as rate of interest – Held, Deceased was employed as head Constable, and Ex. A-4, the pay certificate, discloses that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 3,842/ - Tribunal proceeded to determine the loss of dependency, by adopting the said figure, after deducting 1/3rd , towards personal expenses of deceased – Viewed in isolation, this may appear to be an improper exercise – Supreme Court held in number of cases, including General Manager, KSRTC v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (1) ALT 1 SC that when deceased was an employee, at a relatively young age, the future prospects of his promotion, increments, etc. , must be taken into account. Obviously, because it was not pleaded, Tribunal did not undertake any exercise iin this direction – Deceased would certainly have earned promotions and increments, over a period of time, and his salary would certainly have recorded increase – At this stage, it becomes some-what difficult, to undertake an assessment in that behalf – Court view that detriment suffered by respondents, on this count, can be said to have set off, with the adoption of gross salary of employee, without any deductions – Therefore figures arrived at by Tribunal, be it, on account of loss of dependency, estate and consortium, do not warrant interference – Tribunal awarded interest at rate of 12% per annum – In view rate of interest prevailing in Banking transactions at the relevant point of time, the rate is on higher side – Supreme court has been uniformly restricting rate of interest in such matters, to 7. 5% – Appeal partly allowed.
( 2 ) SRI V. T. M. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident occurred solely on account of the carelessness on the part of the deceased, and the Tribunal had brushed aside the evidence of RW-1, the driver of the bus, without any basis. He contends that the evidence of PW-2 is doubtful and that it ought not to have been accepted. Learned counsel assails the quantum of compensation as well as the rate of interest. According to him, the net salary, not the gross salary, ought to have been taken into account.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents/claimants, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal did not take into account the future prospects of the deceased, and the probable rise in emoluments etz. ought to have constituted the basis for computation of the compensation.
( 4 ) A serious objection is raised by the appellants, for the finding recorded by the Tribunal, on issue No. 1, which related to the cause of accident. On their behalf, the respondents examined PW-2, who is said to be an eye-witness. He stated that he is running a scooter mechanic shop, just opposite to the Bandar Locks, and that he has seen the APSRTC bus, hitting the Moped from behind, since the accident occurred right in front of his shop. The appellants took objection in the evidence of PW-2, by stating that no record was produced, to prove that he was running a mechanic shop at the said place. The nature of activity undertaken by PW-2 was such that, It does not entail maintenance of any records. The appellant was not able to demonstrate that PW-2 did not run any mechanic shop, at all.
( 5 ) ANOTHER effort made by the appellants in this direction was, by examining RW-1, the driver of the bus. This witness, no doubt, stated that he crossed the Moped, by maintaining the distance of 5 to 6 feet, and he heard the cries only after crossing the Moped. This, however, is 03 statement of the person, who is accused of, causing the accident. Unless it is corroborated by an independent witness, it cannot be taken, on its face value. The tribunal took into account the contents of Ex. A-1, the F. I. R; ex. A-2, the M. V. I report, and came to the conclusion that the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated with the said documents. This court is not inclined to take any different view.
( 6 ) AS regards the computation of compensation, it is no doubt true, that wherever the injured or deceased is a salaried employee, his net income, and not the gross income, must be taken into account. In the instant, case, the deceased was employed as head Constable, and Ex. A-4, the pay certificate, discloses that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 3,842/ -. The Tribunal proceeded to determine the loss of dependency, by adopting the said figure, after deducting 1/3rd , towards personal expenses of the deceased. Viewed in isolation, this may appear to be an improper exercise. The Supreme Co
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
