HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1651 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in M.V.O.P. No.449 of 2012 dated 07.07.2015, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioners, the deceased-Md.Anwar Ali was aged 40 years, working in ITW Signode India Limited, Rudraram village and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. As usual on 20-01-2010 at about 9-15 p.m., the deceased was going on his bicycle to attend his night shift duty in the company and when he reached the limits of Rudraram village on National Highway No.9, the rider of the Hero Honda Passion plus motorcycle bearing no. AP 23 Q 4903 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bicycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and received injuries all over his body and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy, 2 from there to Prime Hospital, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, where the deceased died while undergoing treatment on 25.01.2010. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under various heads against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 23 Q 4903.
4. Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and that the claim is excessive.
5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues:
1) Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?
2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of 3 respondent No.2, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,64,500/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit directing the respondent No.2/insurer to pay the compensation to the claimants at the first instance and recover the same from the respondent No.1 by filing an execution petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants have established the fact that the death of the deceased-Md.Anwar Ali was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the 4 Tribunal contending that the Tribunal after considering all aspects has awarded adequate compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
11. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no dispute. However, after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 23 Q 4903 which caused the death of the deceased Md.Anwar Ali.
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, deceased-Md.Anwar Ali was aged 40 years, working in ITW Signode India Limited, Rudraram village and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Even as per Exs.A1, A2 and A5 also, the deceased is an employee of ITW Signode India Limited. The Tribunal has taken notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which is very less. Therefore, considering the avocation of the deceased as an employee of ITW Signode India Limited and the accident pertains to the year 2010, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month. 5 Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 25% of his income, since the deceased was aged in between 42 years. Then it comes to Rs.7,500/- (6,000 + 1,500 = 7,500/-). From this, 1/5th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are six in number. After deducting 1/5th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.6,000/- per month (7,500 - 1,500 = 6,000/-). Since the deceased was 42 years by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '14' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '14', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.6000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.10,08,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Apart from that, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3, the claimant Nos.2 to 4 being the minor children of the deceased, are granted parental consortium of 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.12,05,000/-.
13. With regard to the liability, it is contended by the appellant- Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, heavy burden lies upon the insurer to prove that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of the accident. The evidence of RW-2 does not establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident or not. But it only discloses the fact that the driver has been prosecuted for not producing the driving license. In that light, the evidence of RW-2 is not of much assistance to the insurer in order to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident. This evidence also does not come to the aid of the insurer to discharge its primary duty to establish that there was breach of terms of the policy. As per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in RUKMANI AND OTHERS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. AND 7 OTHERS4, when the insurer had failed to prove the defence raised in the statement of objections, such a plea cannot be accepted. When the police officer or the records are not summoned from the transport authority to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license, then, under such circumstances, it has to be held that the insurer has failed to discharge its burden. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be sustained and it is hereby rejected. Further the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. It has been time and again held that trappings of civil and criminal proceedings cannot be applied in a very strict manner. Therefore, in view of my above discussion, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,64,500/- to Rs.12,05,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Out of the entire 4 (1998) 9 SCC 160 8 compensation, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are entitled for Rs.50,000/- each and the remaining amount shall be apportioned to the petitioners in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the initial claim was for Rs.6,00,000/-. On such payment of deficit court fee only, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 02.12.2022 pgp