HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.399 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 21.07.2006, passed in O.P.No.59 of 2005 on the file of the II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of one Habeeb Fatima (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.01.2001 at about 11.20 A.M. It is stated that on that day the deceased was going along with her brother-in-law on a Scooter bearing No.AP AA 7353 from Hyderabad to Nagarjunasagar and when they reached Urabavi Thanda (Ramamurthy Nagar), a dog came across the road and in order to avoid the same, the rider applied sudden brakes and in the meanwhile another Scooter bearing No. A.P 11 7466 came from behind at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Scooter, on which the deceased was a pillion rider, as a result of which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and she succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in Owaisi Hospital, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad. Basing on a complaint a case in Crime 2 GSD, J Macma_399_2012 No.4 of 2001 has been registered against the rider of the Scooter bearing No.A.P 11 7466. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased, who was aged about 35 years, was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing tailoring work. Hence, they filed the claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the Scooter bearing No. A.P 11 7466.
The 1st respondent remained ex parte.
The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed written statement contending that the compensation claimed is excessive. It is stated that the claimants did not disclose whether their father i.e., the husband of the deceased is alive or not and in the cause title also the name of the husband of the deceased is not mentioned and if the husband of the deceased is alive, the claimants cannot claim to be the dependents of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the petition.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the accident took place on 22.01.2001 at about 11.20 A.M., due to rash and negligent driving of LML Scooter bearing No. AP 11 7466, by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?3
GSD, J Macma_399_2012 On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the Scooter bearing No. AP 11 7466 was responsible for the accident and that the appellants, along with their father Abdul Rasheed, are entitled to compensation and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants.
The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the occupation of the deceased as tailor i.e., skilled worker and the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- notionally. He also submits that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the recent decisions, the income of the housewife is to be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month and the claimants are also entitled to future prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the deceased may be taken into consideration reasonably for assessing loss of dependency and 4 GSD, J Macma_399_2012 prayed to enhance the same. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others1
2. Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And others2
3. Kirti and another etc. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.3
4. Ramla and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others4
5. P.Yeshodamma and others v. T.Buchi Reddy and another5 The case against the 1st respondent was dismissed for default vide Court order, dated 07.09.2011.
The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submits that since no documentary evidence has been produced by the claimants to show that the deceased was a tailor by profession and earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income as per the Schedule in Section 163-A of the M.V. Act stating that the deceased was non-earning member as she being a housewife. It is further submitted that the compensation towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium has also been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced.
1 AIR 2001 SC 3218 2 (2018) 15 SCC 654 3 AIR 2021 SC 353 4 AIR 2019 SC 404 5 (2004) 2 ALD 894 5 GSD, J Macma_399_2012 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 either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.
The short question that arises for consideration is "whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable"?
A perusal of the material available on record would show that the deceased was a tailor and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants. In Lata Wadhwa case (1 supra) the Apex Court had observed that considering the multifarious services rendered by housewives, even on a modest estimation, the income of a housewife between the age group of 34 to 59 years, who were active in life, should be assessed at Rs.36,000/- per annum. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 35 years. Hence, in view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, the income of the deceased is to be fixed at Rs.36,000/- per annum.
Insofar as the future prospects are concerned to the housewives, the Apex Court recently in Kirti case (3 supra) made certain general observations regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation, which can be summarized as follows:
6
GSD, J Macma_399_2012 "a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.
b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.
c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.
e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation."
In view of above said decision, and if the deceased had survived, her skills as a matured and skilled housewife in contributing to the welfare and care of the family and in the upbringing of the children would have only been enhanced by time and for which reason, the appellants shall be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40%.
7
GSD, J Macma_399_2012 After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of the accident. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation6, the suitable multiplier would be '16'. If the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per annum is taken as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Lata Wadwa case (1 supra) and if 40% of the income is added to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects, the total income of the deceased would be Rs.50,400/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.33,600/- per annum. Applying multiplier '16', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.33,600/- x 16 = Rs.5,37,600/-. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- under conventional heads. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others7, the Apex Court held that "the reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively". In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (7 supra), the appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,07,600/-.
6 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 2017 ACJ 2700 8 GSD, J Macma_399_2012 At this stage, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/ Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation, which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is impermissible under law.
In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another8, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh9 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent. 8 (2011) 10 SCC 756 9 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 9 GSD, J Macma_399_2012 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,05,000/- to Rs.6,07,600/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order passed by the Tribunal i.e.21.07.2006 till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants and the husband of the deceased i.e., Abdul Rasheed in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court fee, on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 28.01.2022 Gsn