THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.870 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 20.12.2008 passed in O.P. No.1357 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. The facts, in issue, are as under:
The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- for the death of one Md. Ismail (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.05.2007. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the deceased, husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant Nos. 2 to 4 & son of claimant No. 5, aged about 50 years, was proceeding on a motorcycle, along with pillion rider from Bahadurpura to Puranapool, when the motorcycle reached Pardiwada Bus Stop, the 2 MGP, J Macma_870_2016 offending vehicle i.e., Tata Lorry bearing No. AP 12T 6845, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as owner-cum-driver and therefore, they laid the claim against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-.
4. Before the tribunal, while the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 1 stood ex parte, the insurance company, respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Considering claim, counter and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.4,71,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be payable by the respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the quantum of compensation as meagre, the present appeal came to be filed by the claimants.
3
MGP, J Macma_870_2016
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the deceased was owning a lorry which was given on hire to P.W.3, who used to pay a sum of Rs.800/- per day and that the deceased himself was driver of heavy goods transport vehicle as seen from Ex.A.6, driving licence, and that he used to earn a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. However, without there being any contra evidence, the tribunal has erroneously fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- which is meagre. Further, as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to addition of 15% towards future prospects to the established income of the deceased.
8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2, Insurance company, has contended that in the absence of producing any evidence, either oral or documentary, to prove the factum of owning lorry by the deceased, the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month and rightly awarded the just and reasonable compensation which needs no interference by this Court. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 4 MGP, J Macma_870_2016
9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged by either of the respondents.
10. As regards the quantum of compensation, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was owning a lorry and was earning Rs.800/- per day by giving it on hire basis to P.W.3 and though P.W.3 has deposed to that effect, in the absence of filing any documentary evidence in proof of ownership of the lorry, the tribunal has rightly disbelieved the said claim, but basing on Ex.A.6, driving licence of the deceased, accepting the profession of deceased as driver, fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,500/-. Since the deceased was a skilled worker, this Court is of the view that fixation of monthly income at Rs.4,500/- is meagre and needs to be enhanced. Considering Ex.A.6, this Court fixes the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering the fact that the deceased was 51 years old at the time of the accident as reflected in Ex.A2 & A.3, the claimants are entitled to addition of 15% towards future prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,900/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.900/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased 5 MGP, J Macma_870_2016 following the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, since there are four dependents. After deducting 1/4th therefrom towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the income by the deceased to the family comes to Rs.5,175/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was 51 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '11' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Adopting multiplier '11', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.5,175/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.6,83,100/-. That apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, the claimant No.3 & 4, being the minor children of the deceased, are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,40,100/-.
11. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.4,71,000/- to Rs.8,40,100/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 MGP, J Macma_870_2016 realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time to deposit the entire compensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the major claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 27.12.2022 Tsr 7 MGP, J Macma_870_2016 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.870 of 2016 DATE: -12-2022