HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.523 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad in M.V.O.P. No.788 of 2013 dated 09.09.2015, 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, on 22.10.2013 the deceased-Asadi Balaiah was driving the auto bearing No. AP.25.V.7509 from Amrad village towards Pochampad village side and when the auto reached near Pochampad X roads at about 4-45 p.m., a lorry bearing No. KA.40.4568 being driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the auto, due to which, the auto turned turtle and went off the road. Due to which, the deceased Balaiah and occupants of the auto received grievous injuries and while being shifted to Government Hospital, Nirmal, Asadi Balaiah died. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a driver and also doing business of paddy, maize and other 2 commercial products and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No. KA.40.4568.
4. Respondent No.1 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 claim is highly excessive.
5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues:
1) Whether Asadi Balaiah died due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. KA 40 4568?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondents as claimed?
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 respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 3
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.7,01,600/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
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-Asadi Balaiah 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 Tribunal contending that the Tribunal after considering all aspects has awarded adequate compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
4
11. With regard to the manner of accident, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred due to the over load in the auto driven by the deceased and not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. PW-1 reiterated the averments of the petition. PW-2 deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. However, after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA 40 4568 which resulted the death of the deceased Asadi Balaiah.
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, deceased-Asadi Balaiah was aged 42 years, working as driver of the auto and also doing business in paddy, maize and other commercial products and getting Rs.25,000/- per month. However, as there is no documentary proof to prove his income, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month but not considered the future prospects. In light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited 5 Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 25% of his income, since the deceased was aged 45 years. Then it comes to Rs.7,500/- (6,000 + 1,500 = 7,500/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are fourin number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to his family would be Rs.5,625/- per month (7,500 - 1,875 = 5,625/-). Since the deceased was 45 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.5,625/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.9,45,000/-. 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 Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.11,42,000/-.
1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,01,600/- to Rs.11,42,000/-. 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. 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.10,00,000/-. On such payment of court fee only, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount. The petitioners are not entitled for the interest during the delay period. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 06.12.2022 pgp