HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.2857 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.248 of 2005, dated 09.05.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appellants are the claimants. The O.P. was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the wife, children and mother of the deceased/Khaja Nayeemuddin, claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased. The said accident occurred on 28.11.2004, while the deceased was going by walk to his house at about 8.00 p.m. and when he reached Kanteswar Chourasta, Nizamabad one Suzuki Motorcycle bearing No.AP- 25-G-6441 came from behind, driven by its rider in a rash and 2 GAC, J MACMA.No.2857 of 2008 negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple crush injuries to his head and other parts of the body, and later succumbed to injuries on 29.11.2004 while undergoing treatment in Government hospital, Nizamabad.
4. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered against the rider of the motorcycle in Crime No.131 of 2004 on the file of III-Town Police Station, Nizamabad, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. It is the specific averment in the claim petition that the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.6,097/- per month as a Government employee.
5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents disputing the age and income of the deceased. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle.
3
GAC, J MACMA.No.2857 of 2008
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.7,54,000/-.
7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence would be with respect to the quantum alone.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the gross income of the deceased as Rs.6,097/- per month and further erred in calculating the income basing on the net salary as Rs.5,397/- and therefore, prayed to consider the gross income of the deceased and by applying proper multiplier and also to grant future prospects and amounts under other Notional heads 4 GAC, J MACMA.No.2857 of 2008 while calculating the compensation and prayed to allow the appeal.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that there is no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal confirming the judgment of the Tribunal.
11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on 28.11.2004. Ex.A-5/salary certificate of the deceased disclose that the deceased was earning Rs.6,097/- as on the date of the accident, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2. The deceased worked as Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nizamabad. The Tribunal erred in not considering the gross salary of the deceased while calculating the compensation and therefore, it is just and necessary to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.6,097/- per month.
5
GAC, J MACMA.No.2857 of 2008
12. Admittedly, the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident was 35 years as per Exs.A-3 and A-4 i.e. inquest and postmortem reports of the deceased respectively. As per the proposition laid in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others1, the Government employee who is below the age of 40 years, is entitled for 50% of future prospects. If 50% future prospects is added, it would come to Rs.9,145.50 ps., (Rs.6,097+Rs.3,048.50 ps.). The number of claimants in this case are five in number. Therefore, 1/4th has to be deducted from the earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Thus, his contribution towards family would come to Rs.6,859.125/- (Rs. 9,145.50 ps. (-) Rs.2,286.375 ps.). As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2, the multiplier applicable is '16' for the age group of 31 to 35 years. If the annual income and multiplier '16' are applied, then, the loss of earnings of the deceased would be 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 GAC, J MACMA.No.2857 of 2008 Rs.13,16,952/- (Rs.6,859.125 ps. X 12 X 16), which is rounded-off to Rs.13,17,000/-.
13. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra), wife, 3 children and mother of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under the following heads;
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,17,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to Rs.2,00,000/-
the wife, 3 children and mother of
the deceased)
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.15,47,000 /-
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total compensation of Rs.15,47,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 within 7 GAC, J MACMA.No.2857 of 2008 one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are minors as on the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. in the year 2004 and now they have become majors. Therefore, all the appellants are equally entitled for the said amount and they are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, on payment of deficit Court fee.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 02.12.2022 ajr