THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
M.A.C.M.A. No.2030 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 22.06.2010 in M.V.O.P.No.473 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I- Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short, the Tribunal).
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased, Uppala Yellaiah. On 24.10.2004 the deceased and appellant No.1 attended the funeral ceremony of their relative and when they were returning to Palakurthy by boarding an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP36W 0264 at about 7.000 PM., and reached the outskirts of Kolukonda village, Devuruppula Mandal, another auto bearing No.AP36V 9889 driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in opposite direction and dashed against the augo bearing No.AP36W 0264. Due to which, the deceased fell down from the auto and sustained severe injuries and died while undergoing treatment on 26.10.2004. The claimants filed aforesaid MVOP claiming compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- against respondent No.1-driver-cum-owner, Respondent No.2 insurer of the offending auto, respondent No.3 driver of the auto in which the deceased was traveling at the time of accident, respondent No.4 owner, respondent No.5 insurer of the auto and respondent No.6 representative of respondent No.5, for the death of the deceased. 2
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellants on the ground that they failed to establish the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP36V 9889 by its driver or due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP36W 0624 in which the deceased was traveling; that there is delay in lodging the complaint and no medical evidence has been produced to show that the deceased was treated for the injuries sustained by him.
5. Sri S.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the complainant is an illiterate person and that it is highly improbable to remember the registration number of the auto, which came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, in which the deceased was traveling. The Tribunal misconceived the evidence placed by the appellants and drawn adverse inference as the case sheet of the deceased was not produced and erroneously held that as the F.I.R., was launched after two days after the accident, it would be doubtful for the cause of accident. The deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing mason work, therefore the appellants are entitle for the loss of income by applying appropriate multiplier as per 3 Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1. He further submitted that the appellants are also entitled to addition of 40% on the income of the deceased towards future prospects and Rs.70,000/- towards conventional charges, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi2. He further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others3, appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each, being the minor children of the deceased, under the head parental consortium.
6. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that the tribunal passed a reasoned award and it needs no interference.
7. Admittedly, the accident occurred with collusion of two auto rickshaws, resulting death of the deceased. The registration number of the auto in which the deceased was traveling is AP36W 0264 and the auto which was driven in a rash and negligent manner was AP36V 9889. The complainant being an illiterate person has shown the offending vehicle No.AP36W 0264 instead of AP36V 9889. In the inquest report, the police have categorically indicated the vehicle No.AP36V 9889 as crime vehicle. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal and he underwent treatment in the said hospital and died thereafter and there is delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. When an 1 2009 (6) SCC 1211 2 2017(6) ALD 170 (SC) 3 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 4 untoward accident occurred suddenly, any person would first attend the medical assistance instead of running to the police station for filing a complaint. The inquest report indicates the correct vehicle numbers. Basing on the technical and trivial grounds, the claim of appellants which is covered by a beneficial legislation, cannot be compared with the provisions of strict civil procedure code. On the ground of not filed the case sheet of the deceased, it cannot be said that the accident has not taken place. It is not the case of the respondents that the deceased has not died because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants, clinchingly proves that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP36V 9889. The driver of offending vehicle was having valid driving licence and the said vehicle is covered with insurance policy as on the date of accident, therefore, the claimants are entitled for the compensation.
8. There is no dispute that the deceased was doing mason work and therefore, the notional income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.54,000/- per annum. Since there are three dependants, 1/3rd of his income should be deducted towards his personal expenditure as decided by the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Varma (Supra). Apart from the same, the appellants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.54,000 + Rs.21,600/- future prospects). After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the 5 income of the deceased comes to Rs.50,400/- per annum. As per Ex.A3 inquest report, the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident and the multiplier for the said age is '15'. Hence, the compensation under the head 'loss of income' comes to Rs.7,56,000/- (50,400/- x 15). The appellants are also entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards conventional charges, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). In the light of Nanu Ram's case (supra), a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/- X 2) is granted to the appellants 2 and 3, being the minor children. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.9,26,000/-/- (Rs.7,56,000/- + Rs.70,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-).
9. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside the Award and Decree dated 22.06.2010 in M.V.O.P.No.473 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional District Judge, Warangal, awarding compensation of Rs.9,26,000/-. The amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The appellants are directed to pay the Court fee over and above the amount claimed by them. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date: 19.01.2021.
Shr 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD M.A.C.M.A. No.2248 OF 2007 Date:08.01.2021.
Shr