THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1835 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2011 in O.P.No.98 of 2010, on the file of the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim of the appellants herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.9,87,224/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company. Perused the record.
3. The appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.23 lakhs on account of death of the deceased Nampally Narayana, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.11.2009. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the children and claimants 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. According to the claimants, at the time of accident, the deceased boarded auto bearing No.AP-15X-1339 at Sulthanabad in order to go to Peddapally Electrical Sub-Divisional Office. When the auto reached in front of MVI office at about 11:00 am, on the outskirts of Rangampalli Village, an Eicher Van bearing No.AP-28X-0526, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, dashed the auto, as a result of which, the deceased sustained severe injuries and he succumbed to the same on way to hospital. It is pleaded by the 2 claimants that the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident and was drawing a gross salary of Rs.9,450/- per month and net salary of Rs.7,557/- per month by working as Lineman Operator.
4. The first respondent-driver and second respondent-owner of the Eicher Van remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The third respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.
5. On the strength of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
(i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Eicher Van bearing No.AP 28X-0526?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation, if so, to what amount and from
whom?
(iii) To what relief?
6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the insurer, but copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1 with consent.
7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Eicher Van by its driver. On issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,87,224/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied 3 with the award, the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Eicher Van by its driver is not challenged, as no appeal is filed by the insurer. The further finding that the owner and insurer of the Eicher Van are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation is also not disputed.
9. The only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the claimants are entitled for any enhancement of compensation and if so to what extent.
10. Though it is disputed by the claimants that the deceased was aged 38 years, but it is borne out from the record and the evidence of P.W.3, who is Junior Accounts Officer, that the deceased was aged 41 years at the time of accident and was working as Lineman Operator, earning Rs.9,450/- per month and getting a net salary of Rs.7,557/- per month. The Tribunal, after deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses, estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.5,668/- per month (Rs.7,557/- minus Rs.1889/-) and Rs.68,016/- per annum. After applying the multiplier '14' estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.9,52,224/- (Rs.68,016 x 14). The Tribunal further awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses, making up a total compensation of Rs.9,87,224/-.
4
11. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal had erroneously taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.7,557/-, instead ought to have taken Rs.9,364/- (Rs.9459/- minus Rs.80/- professional tax). The learned counsel further contends that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS1, an addition of 30% of the income should be made where the deceased had permanent job and was in between the age group of 40 to 50 years. If there are six dependants, one-fifth has to be deducted from the annual income of the deceased. The Tribunal had erroneously applied multiplier '14' instead of '15' since the deceased was aged 41 years at the time of accident. Further, the amounts awarded under the conventional heads are very low. He finally prayed for enhancement of compensation.
12. The learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company, on the other hand, contends that the multiplier '14' applied by the Tribunal is just and proper. After considering the material on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal had arrived at correct compensation, which is just and reasonable and needs no interference.
13. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and was drawing a salary of Rs.7,557/-. It is borne out from the record that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.9,364/- per month (Rs.9459/- minus Rs.80/- professional tax). month. If 30% is added as future prospects to the income of the 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 deceased, who had permanent job and was in between the age group of 40 to 50 years, the same comes to Rs.2,809/- (Rs.9364/- plus 30% of Rs.9364/-). The total monthly income comes to Rs.12,173/- (Rs.9,364/- plus Rs.2,809/-) and Rs.1,46,076/- per annum. As the deceased had six dependents, one fourth of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Applying the same, it comes to Rs.1,09,557/- (Rs.1,46,076/- minus Rs.39,519/- (1/4th of Rs.1,46,076/-)). The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased would be '14' as per judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION2. Thus, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.15,33,798/-. An amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded, as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1. Further, an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is awarded to claimants 2 to 4, who are children of the deceased, as against Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, towards loss of estate. An amount of Rs.80,000/- is awarded to claimants 5 and 6 towards parental consortium and a further sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards transportation and funeral expenses, as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, under the said head. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.18,03,798/- as compensation.
14. In the circumstances, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.
2 2009(6) SCC 121 6
15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.9,87,224/- to Rs.18,03,798/-. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI Date: 31.01.2022 Lrkm 7