THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI
MACMA No.853 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is preferred by the petitioners-claimants assailing the award and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed in O.P. No.958 of 2007 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.7,47,000/- was awarded to the petitioners as against the claim of Rs.12.00 lakhs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are briefly as follows:
4. On 03.03.2007 Mr.Narsimha (deceased) and his brother Satyanarayana were approaching on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 N 4810 to Ramalingampally from Keesara village. At about 7.00 PM when they reached near Peddamma Cheruvu of Keesara village, a Car bearing No.AP 9 BC 3636 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle form opposite side and caused accident. Due to 2 GSD, J Macma_853_2012 which Narasimha and his brother Satyanarayana sustained injuries. Narasimha was shifted to Polomy hospital in A.S.Rao Nagar where he had undergone treatment for 26 days and thereafter he was shifted to Uday Clinic for operation to spinal card. However, Narasimha succumbed to injuries on 27.04.2007. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.68 of 2007 was registered under Sections 338 and 304-A of IPC. The case of the petitioners/claimants is that by the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 34 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. as supervisor of agricultural farm. As on the date of accident, the offending vehicle which belongs to the first respondent was insured with the second respondent. First petitioner is wife, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are children and petitioner Nos.5 is mother of the deceased and that they are dependants on the income of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners filed the petition seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- from the respondents.
5. The first respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, filed counter denying the mode of accident and liability without raising any specific plea. The second respondent - 3
GSD, J Macma_853_2012 insurer filed counter contending that the driver of the motorcycle was equally responsible for the accident and hence there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It was further contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners under various heads is highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence the petition may be dismissed.
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.
7. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral, documentary evidence and other material available on record, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded a compensation of Rs.7,47,000/- to the petitioners and against the respondents with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Not being satisfied with the 4 GSD, J Macma_853_2012 said amount of compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
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 the respondents.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as seen from the record, to prove the expenses incurred by the petitioners towards treatment of the deceased/husband of the first petitioner/appellant that immediately after the accident the deceased was shifted to Polomy hospital at A.S.Rao Nagar on 03.03.2007 and that he was under the continuous treatment in the said hospital till 07.04.2007 on which date he succumbed to the injuries. To prove that fact, the claimants have examined the doctor of the said hospital as P.W.3. The claimants also marked Exs.A.3 and A.10 which are the receipt issued by Polomi hospital and bunch of medical bills during the course of evidence of P.W.3. As per Ex.A.10 bunch of medical bills the appellants have incurred an amount of Rs.4,23,000/-. However, 5 GSD, J Macma_853_2012 the Tribunal awarded only Rs.50,000/- under the said head. Since the deceased was in the hospital for the purpose of treatment for a period more than one month and succumbed to the injuries on 07.04.2007, there is no reason for the Tribunal to disbelieve the version of the appellants and to award a meager amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head 'hospital and medical treatment'. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to Rs.4,23,000/- towards hospital and medical treatment of the deceased.
11. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. The age of the deceased was 34 years as on the date of accident. There is no dispute with regard to the income and age of the deceased.
12. A perusal of the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, it appears that the deceased had left five dependents. The Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4th.
6
GSD, J Macma_853_2012
13. In the light of the ratio laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 if 40% of the income is added towards future prospects, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.7,000/- p.m. if 1/4th is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, his contribution to the family would come to Rs.5,250/- per month.
14. Since the deceased was aged about 34 years, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the actual multiplier 16 is applied, loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,250/- X 12 X 16 = 10,08,000/-.
15. Apart from the same, the appellants are also entitled to a tune of Rs.77,000/- as compensation under conventional heads as per the case of pranay Sethi (1 supra). So the appellants are entitled to Rs.10,08,000/- + Rs.77,000/- + Rs.4,23,000/- = Rs.15,08,000/-.
1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 GSD, J Macma_853_2012
16. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
17. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another3, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4 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."
18. 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 3 (2011) 10 SCC 756 4 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 8 GSD, J Macma_853_2012 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.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.7,46,000/- to Rs.15,08,000/- The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered 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 13.07.2022 Kvsn