HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1541 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P. No.386 of 2014 dated 15.02.2016, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants are the parents of one Shaik Mujaheed (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). It is the case of the claimants that on 25.07.2015 while the deceased along with Syed Ghouse were going on bicycle and when they reached in front of Masjid at 8-30 a.m. a lorry bearing No. AP 20 TB 5688 being driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner and dashed against their bicycle, as a result of which both the rider and also pillion rider were run over by the lorry and they sustained injuries and died. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 15 years and was student and also selling fruit juice and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and therefore, the claimants filed the 2 aforesaid O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.7 lakhs under various heads.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex parte.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.
6. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues:
1) Whether on 25.7.2014 at about 8.30 am in front of Rafeeq ahospital, Nehrunagar, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No. AP 20 TB 5688 by its driver?
2) Whether Shaik Mujaheed received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondent?
4) To what relief?
7. 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-5. On behalf of 3 respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants.
9. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that after considering all aspects the Tribunal granted adequate compensation and therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. There is no dispute with regard to the accident in question and involvement of the offending vehicle. However, after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence 4 available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.
12. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 14 years at the time of accident. In Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others1 the Apex Court having considered the grant of compensation in similar circumstances, has awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of a 10 year old boy. Recently, in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu2 the Apex Court has awarded an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- by fixing the notional income of the deceased boy, who was aged about 10 years, at Rs.25,000/- and multiplied by '15'.
13. In the instant case, the deceased was 14 years old boy. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu (2 supra) and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to take notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier '15', as prescribed in Schedule-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it comes to Rs.3,75,000/- (Rs.25,000/- x 1 (2014) 1 SCC 244 2 Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (SC) 5 Multiplier 15) towards loss of dependency. The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants are entitled for Rs.4,70,000/-.
14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. The claimants shall be permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 06.12.2022 pgp