HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.267 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-corporation challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Addl. District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P. No. 355 of 2015, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimants (respondents herein) on account of death of the deceased Arrolla Akshaya Kumar in a road accident which occurred on 04.08.2013.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.08.2013 the son of the appellant, one late Arrolla Akshaya Kumar (aged about 19 years)was travelling as a pillion rider on a Motorbike/Yamaha FZ bearing registration No.AP-23-T/R-7334 along with two friends and when they reached near Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Madinaguda, the motorcycle collided with an R.T.C. bus bearing No. A.P.23-Z-0078 as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous head injury and succumbed while being shifted to hospital. A crime was also registered at Miyapur Police Station as Cr.No.445 of 2013 under Sections 304A and 337 IPC, against the driver of the RTC bus. The appellant, on behalf of the family, filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death of his son.

3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded finding to the effect that though the FIR alleged rash and negligent driving by the bus driver, the scene and inquest panchanama suggested that the rider of the motorcycle attempted to overtake the bus, lost control, and fell under the back tyre of the bus. The Tribunal ultimately held that both the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the bus were negligent and apportioned liability 50:50 and awarded compensation of Rs.11,75,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimants (respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein) on account of death of the deceased Arrolla Akshaya Kumar, as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant- corporation vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in finding negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and in holding the owner-corporation vicariously liable; the Tribunal wrongly assessed contributory negligence and ought to have fixed 100% negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle; the Tribunal erred in taking notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- pm and applying multiplier 18; the various heads of compensation (in particular amounts awarded for loss of love and affection and mental agony and trauma) are excessive; and as such, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal requires interference by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4-claimants, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.

6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. A careful examination of the record discloses that the documentary evidence, in the form of FIR, scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama, clearly establishes involvement of the RTC bus in the accident. While the panchanama indicates that the motorcycle rider attempted to overtake and lost control, the presence of the bus and the nature of impact justify the Tribunal’s view that the bus driver also failed to exercise due caution. Therefore, this Court finds that assessment of contributory negligence is based on the material on record and is not arbitrary.

8. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal adopted notional monthlyincome of Rs.10,000/- for a 19 year old student. This is neither excessive nor contrary to settled principles governing assessment of income for yo