In a significant ruling that underscores the judiciary's duty to ensure adequate redressal for victims of road accidents, the Telangana High Court has sharply criticized a lower tribunal and enhanced the compensation awarded to a deceased man's family by nearly 500 per cent.
Court Slams Tribunal's 'Conservative' Award
Setting aside a 2011 order by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Warangal, Justice B R Madhusudhan Rao, in a judgment dated January 6, enhanced the compensation from a mere Rs 2,51,000 to Rs 12,44,500. The court was hearing a Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed in 2014.
The case pertained to the death of Beligini Shankaraiah, who died on the spot in June 2010 when an Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) bus collided with his motorcycle near the Ghanpur bus stand. His widow, Beligini Baswa Rani, and two minor children had approached the tribunal seeking higher compensation.
Faulty Calculations and Wrongful Negligence Ruling
Justice Rao found multiple faults with the Tribunal's approach. The MACT had initially calculated a compensation of Rs 5.02 lakh but held that the deceased was equally responsible for the accident due to contributory negligence. It thus awarded only 50% of this amount—Rs 2.51 lakh—to the family at an annual interest rate of 6%.
The High Court strongly disagreed with this finding of contributory negligence. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including the case of Sushma vs Nitin Ganapati Rangole, Justice Rao stated that a person placed in sudden danger cannot be blamed for not taking the best possible evasive action. The court cited that "mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some extraordinary precaution, does not in itself constitute negligence."
Furthermore, the court criticized the Tribunal for being "overly conservative" in assessing the deceased's income and the impact of his death on his minor children. The Tribunal had pegged his monthly income at only Rs 2,500.
Recalculation for 'Just and Fair' Compensation
Emphasizing the principle from the Supreme Court's Anjali vs Lokendra Rathod judgment to award "just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed," the High Court undertook a fresh calculation.
The court reassessed Shankaraiah's monthly income, considering his agricultural earnings, at Rs 6,000 instead of Rs 2,500. It then factored in future prospects, loss of dependency, spousal and parental consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses as per the landmark National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi guidelines.
The final enhanced compensation was fixed at Rs 12,44,500 with an increased interest of 9% per annum from the date of the original petition until full payment. Of this, the widow is entitled to Rs 8,71,150, and the two children will receive Rs 1,86,675 each.
The court directed that the minors' share be deposited in a nationalised bank until they attain majority. It also ordered the APSRTC (Respondent No. 1) to deposit the enhanced amount, after deducting any sums already paid, within 60 days of receiving the judgment copy.
This ruling serves as a potent reminder to claims tribunals to apply the law liberally and compassionately, ensuring that compensation truly reflects the loss suffered by families in tragic road accidents.
