Smt.G.Santhoshi And 4 Ors vs. The Ap State Road Transport Corporation And Anr

Facts

The appellants, comprising the widow, minor children, and mother of the deceased G. Ambadas, filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. They alleged that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on May 16, 2010, due to the rash and negligent driving of an APSRTC bus. The deceased was a contractor-cum-auto driver earning Rs. 21,500/- per month. The respondents, APSRTC and its Depot Manager, denied the allegations, contended that the accident was due to the deceased's negligence while under the influence of alcohol, and disputed the income and quantum of compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,02,000/- with interest. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.

Held

The Court held that the Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus driver was correct and saw no reason to interfere with it. Regarding the compensation, the Court found that the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased's income. While the claimants stated an income of Rs. 21,500/- per month, and P.W.4 provided documentary evidence of payments in financial years 2007-08 (Rs. 94,864/-), 2008-09 (Rs. 2,25,023/-), 2009-10 (Rs. 2,58,415/-), and 2010 (Rs. 27,006/-), the Tribunal relied on P.Ws.1 and 3's testimony of Rs. 12,000/- per month plus per kilometer charges. The High Court, considering the evidence, inclined to take the deceased's income at Rs. 12,000/- per month. Applying the principles from National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, the Court added 40% for future prospects (Rs. 4,800/-), making the monthly income Rs. 16,800/-. Deducting 1/4th for personal expenses, the contribution to the family was Rs. 12,600/-. Using a multiplier of 17 (for an age of 29 years), the loss of dependency was calculated as Rs. 25,70,400/-. Additionally, Rs. 77,000/- was awarded under conventional heads. The total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 26,47,400/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus by its driver, as per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable, considering the income of the deceased and the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others? Contentions of the Appellants: The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased's income at Rs. 9,000/- per month. They contended that, as per the principles in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, they are entitled to future prospects and Rs. 77,000/- under conventional heads. They specifically cited that 40% of the income should be added for future prospects for a deceased below 40 years of age. Contentions of the Respondents: The respondents argued that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased, who was driving under the influence of alcohol. They asserted no negligence on the part of the RTC bus driver and therefore denied liability for compensation. They also contended that the claimed quantum of compensation was excessive and baseless.