HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. Nos.2521 of 2012 and 530 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.530 of 2014 filed by the claimants for
enhancement of compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.2521 of 2012 filed
by the Insurance Company are directed against the very same
award, dated 21.03.2012, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1324 of 2006 on the
file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I-
Additional District Judge, Warangal.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased G. Kiran
Kumar, filed a petition under Section 166 (i) (c) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the
death of G.Kiran Kumar in a road accident that took place on
29.10.2005. It is stated that on 29.10.2005 at about 3.30 A.M., the
deceased left his office for home after completion of his duties in
Wipro Industries at Pune on his Karishma Hero Honda Motor Cycle
bearing No.MH-12/TC-4161 and when he reached Devlali Super
Market on Hinjwadi-Wakad Road, one Tata Indica Car bearing
No.MH-14-V-7496 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
2
manner dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased while
overtaking it. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and
received multiple fracture injuries. Immediately after the accident,
the deceased was shifted to Rubi Hall Hospitals, Pune, where the
deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. On a
complaint, the Police, Hinjwadi registered a case in Crime No.109 of
2005 against the driver of the Car. It is stated that prior to the
accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning
Rs.13,377/- per month as he was working as Associate in Wipro
Industries, Pune. On account of death of the deceased, the
petitioners lost their son. The 1st respondent being the owner of the
vehicle, 2nd respondent being insurer of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent being the local insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex aparte. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments in the petition including the involvement of the Car in the said accident. It also disputed the manner in which the accident took place, the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It was further contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive, exorbitant and out of proportions and also denied that the vehicle was insured with it and as such the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.
3
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.MH- 14-V-7496 by its driver or due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself in riding his motor cycle bearing No.MH-12/TC-4161?
2) What was the age and income of the deceased by the date of his death?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
4) To what relief?
During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 and Exs.X1 to X5 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was marked.
After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the 1st respondent was responsible for the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.14,41,200/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents.
Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased not the age of his mother for assessing the loss of dependency in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport 4 Corporation and another1. He also submits that as the deceased was having stable income and in view of his age, the Tribunal ought to have added 50% of the income towards future prospects as held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2. He further submits that the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, ought to have been granted filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant; that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the claimants without any material evidence; that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was unmarried and as the claimants are the parents, the deduction towards personal expenditure should be 50% as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (1 supra) and not 1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal, as such, the impugned award is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. He further submits that the award of the Tribunal on loss of consortium and loss of estate is excessive and contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (1 supra) and prayed to set aside the impugned award. In support of his contention, he relied upon 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. V. Somwati and others4.
The undisputed facts are that the deceased was a bachelor aged 27 years, working as Associate in Wipro Industries, Pune, at the time of incident. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company did not dispute the manner in which the incident took place and also the negligence of the driver of the Car in causing the incident. He only disputes the manner in which the calculations were made in respect of compensation awarded to the claimants.
A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards loss of future prospects. As regard the income of the deceased, the case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as an Associate in Wipro Industries, Pune and used to earn Rs.13,377/- per month. In order to prove the same, the claimants got examined the Senior Executive in Wipro as P.W.3, who deposed that the deceased was a Software Engineer and used to earn Rs.13,377/-. Ex.A9 and Ex.X3 are the pay slips which were placed on record in support of their version. A perusal of the same would show that the deceased would get salary of Rs.13,377/- per month.
The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants would contend that since the deceased was having fixed salary, he was entitled for 40% towards loss of future prospects, in view of the 4 (2020) 9 SCC 644 6 judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranaysethi and others (2 supra).
As per the record, the age of the deceased was 27 years on the date of accident and as he was working as an Associate in Wipro Industries, Pune, and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranaysethi and others (2 supra), 40% for loss of future prospects on his personal income has to be added. Accordingly, If 40% is calculated towards loss of future prospects, the total amount would be Rs.13,377/- + 5,350/- = 18,727.80 rounded off to Rs.18,728/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor, his personal living expenses shall be 50% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.9,364/-. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others5 when the deceased was a bachelor, the age of the deceased has to be considered while determining the multiplier and not the age of the younger parent as contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance company. Since the age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '17' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma case (1 supra). Adopting multiplier 17, his total loss of earnings would be Rs.9,364/- x 12 x 17, which comes to Rs.19,10,256/-. The amount awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional heads i.e., Rs.50,000/- appears to be reasonable and 5 2015 (6) SCC 347, 7 remains unchanged. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.19,60,256/-.
At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law. The learned Counsel for the claimants would submit that the claimants filed I.A.No.1 of 2014 seeking enhancement of the claim from Rs.15.00 lakhs to Rs.21.00 lakhs and the same is pending.
In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another6, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh7 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount 6 (2011) 10 SCC 756 7 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 8 consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.14,41,200/- to Rs.19,60,256/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 10.11.2021 Gsn/gkv 9