Telangana HC hikes compensation to 2010 road accident victim’s family by 500%, slams Tribunal’s conservative award

The court enhanced the amount to Rs 12,44,500. (File Photo)

Emphasising the court’s duty to award “just and fair compensation” in case of loss of a human life in a road accident, the Telangana High Court last week allowed an appeal and enhanced the compensation award by nearly 500 per cent.

Justice B R Madhusudhan Rao’s judgment dated January 6 set aside a 2011 order by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal, which awarded Rs 2,51,000 as compensation to the family of a man killed in a road accident over 15 years ago, and enhanced this amount to Rs 12,44,500. The judgment came in a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed in 2014.

Beligini Shankaraiah died on the spot in June 2010 when an Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation bus collided with his motorcycle near Ghanpur bus stand.

While Shankaraiah’s widow, Beligini Baswa Rani, and his two minor children approached the Tribunal seeking higher compensation, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation contended that the deceased drove in a rash and negligent manner.

While awarding a compensation of Rs 5.02 lakh to his family, the Tribunal noted equal contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and held that the petitioners were entitled to only 50 per cent of the award, Rs 2.51 lakh, and awarded interest at 6 per cent per annum.

The family challenged the quantum award and the deceased’s contributory negligence before the High Court.

Justice Rao found fault with the Tribunal’s calculation methods, particularly its failure to account for future prospects and the actual loss of dependency. Justice Rao referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Anjali vs Lokendra Rathod that “an endeavour should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicants”.

The court also found fault with the Tribunal’s conclusion of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Sushma vs Nitin Ganapati Rangole that “… where, by his negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence, if that other acts in a way which, with the benefit of hindsight is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty”.

The court also cited the decision in Swadling vs Cooper, 1931, that “mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence”.

Justice Rao held that the Tribunal had been overly conservative in its assessment of the deceased’s income and the impact of his death on the minor children. The court concluded that the appellants are “entitled to future prospects of the deceased along with spouse and parental consortium with loss of estate, funeral expenses as per judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others.”

Reassessing the deceased’s monthly income as Rs 6,000 instead of Rs 2,500, after taking into account his other incomes, including from agriculture, the court modified the award to Rs 12,44,500 with an interest of 9 per cent from the date the petition was filed until the final payment.

While the widow is entitled to Rs 8,71,150, the two minor children are awarded Rs 1,86,675 each. Since they were minors, the court directed that their share be deposited with any nationalised bank until they attain majority.

Finally, the Court directed APSRTC (Respondent No. 1) to deposit the enhanced amount, minus any amounts already paid, within 60 days of receiving the judgment.