HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.630 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District in O.P. No.1060 of 2011 dated 25.01.2016, 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 21.10.2010 the deceased- J.Srinivas was proceeding on lorry bearing No.AP 28 TA 2233 as a cleaner to Visakhapatnam and at about 4-30 a.m. lorry was stopped by the side of the road on National Highway No.5 at Vimannagar near Airport at Visakhapatnam to answer calls of nature and after that the driver boarded the lorry and without observing that Srinivas boarded the lorry or not started the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and as such, Srinivas fell down from the lorry and lorry ran over him, due to which Srinivas died instantaneously. Thus the petitioners are claiming 2 compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the lorry jointly and severally.
4. Respondent No.1 filed counter admitting his ownership of the lorry, which was validly insured with respondent No.2.
5. 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.
6. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues:
1) Whether the accident that had occurred on 21.10.2010 at about 4-30 a.m. near Viman Nagar bus stop, NH-5 road, Visakhapatnam was due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 28 TA 2233 and whether it had resulted in the death of the deceased Jakkamsetty Srinivas S/o Peddiraj?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation and if so to what amount and from?
3) 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 respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 3
8. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.7,56,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
9. 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.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants have established the fact that the death of the deceased-J.Srinivas was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
11. 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
12. Admittedly, there is no disputed with regard to the manner of accident. 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.AP 28 TA 2233 which resulted the death of the deceased J.Srinivas.
13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, deceased-J.Srinivas was aged 27 years, working as cleaner of the lorry and getting Rs.5,000/- per month as salary and Rs.100/- per day as batta. However, as there is no documentary proof to prove his income, the Tribunal has taken the actual income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, which appears to be meager. Hence, considering the avocation of the deceased as a cleaner and the accident is of the year 2010, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. 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 @ 40% of his income, since the deceased was aged 27 years. Then it comes to Rs.7,000/- (5,000 + 2,000 = 7,000/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are five in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to his family would be Rs.5,250/- per month (7,000 - 1,750 = 5,250/-). Since the deceased was 27 years by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '17' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '17', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.5,250 x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/-. 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 and 3 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.12,28,000/-.
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,56,000/- to Rs.12,28,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 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 amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the initial claim was for Rs.8,00,000/-. 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 13.12.2022 pgp