HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2017 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in O.P. No.1638 of 2001, dated 22.08.2014, 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, on 10.04.2000 the deceased Mahesh Sahu was proceeding towards Nampally Station in an auto and got down from the auto at Gagan Pahad road, in the meantime, lorry bearing No. TN 67 Y 0308 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed him, due to which, Mahesh Sahu died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased Mahesh Sahu was aged 22 years, working as Machine Operator at A-1 Textiles and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to his family. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Later deleted the respondent No.2 and added respondent No.3 who is insurer of the 2 offending vehicle as per the orders in I.A.Nos.1299 and 1300 of 2013 dated 27.9.2013.
4. Respondent No.2 fled counter alleging that the offending lorry was not insured with them and it is insured with respondent No.3-United India Insurance Company and prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Respondent No.3 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the accident took place due to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.
6. Originally, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were remained ex parte and accordingly, after adducing evidence from the petitioners' side, petition was allowed on 23.2.2004 granting Rs.1,34,000/- as compensation payable with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. Thereafter, ex parte decree passed on 23.2.2004 was set aside as per the orders dated 16.4.2013 passed in I.A.No.56 of 2013 and respondent No.2 is deleted and respondent No.3 is added as a party.
3
7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. TN 67 Y 0308 causing death of Mahesh Sahu?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
3. To what relief?
8. In order to prove the above issues, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3, no witnesses were examined and no document was marked.
9. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against the respondent Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally, along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from 27.09.2013 till the date of deposit.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-United India Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record. 4
11. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6, established the fact that the death of the deceased- Mahesh Sahu was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
12. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
13. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased, PW-2 who is the eyewitness to the accident deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry. Further the police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending lorry. Therefore, considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 5
14. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 22 years and earning Rs.4,000/- per month by working as Machine Operator at A-1 Textiles and he was also getting income of Rs.1,500/- per month by doing private jobs. However, as there is no income proof, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is very less. A perusal of inquest report discloses that the deceased is a mechanic. Therefore, considering the age and avocation of the deceased and year of accident, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.4,000/- per month. 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 also entitled to the future prospects and since the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.5,600/- (4,000 + 1,600 = 5,600). Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.2,800/- (5,600 - 2,800 = 2,800) per month. Since the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport 1 2017 ACJ 2700 6 Corporation2 is "18". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.2,800/- x 12 x 18 =Rs.6,04,800/-. In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are granted Rs.33,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (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 No.3, being mother of the deceased, is granted filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.6,77,800/-.
15. With regard to the liability, as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, which was insured with respondent No.3 covering the date of accident, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.6,77,800/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from 27.09.2013 till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally. The amount of 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants-claimants 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 the deficit court fee and on such payment of court fee only, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 02.12.2022 pgp