THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1600 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the award dated 07.07.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.394 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed by appellants herein seeking compensation was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.28,95,599/-, as against the claimed amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company. None appeared for respondent No.1. Perused the material on record.
3. Appellants herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased P. Kistaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.08.2013. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2 is the son and claimants 3 and 4 are the daughters and appellant 2 No.5 is the mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, while the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing No.AP 23AE 2468 from Yensonpalli Village towards Yellupalli and when they reached near M.P.D.O Office on outer ring road, Siddipet, the rider of the said motorcycle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed to the water manual on the road side due to which the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and received grievous injuries, besides other injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Siddipet and from there to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and thereafter to Oxygen Hospital, Alwal, Hyderabad. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 05.08.2013. A case was registered against the rider of the motorcycle in Cr.No.195 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC by Siddipet Town P.S. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 54 years and working as a Mechanic in APSRTC, Siddipet Depot and was getting a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the welfare and maintenance of the family.
3
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 - insurance company filed counter opposing the claim and denying its liability to pay the compensation.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:
(i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.AP 23AE 2468 causing death of P. Kistaiah?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?
If so, to what extent and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked, apart from Exs.X1 to X4, on behalf of the claimants. Respondent No.2 did not choose to adduce any evidence, but a copy of the policy was marked as Ex.B1 by consent.
7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider. The said finding has become final, as no appeal is preferred by the insurer 4 questioning the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants were entitled for a total compensation of Rs.28,95,599/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.
8. The only question that arises for consideration in this present appeal is - whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, and if so, to what extent?
9. It is not in dispute that claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2 is the son and claimants 3 and 4 are the daughters and appellant No.5 is the mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Mechanic in APSRTC and getting a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal considered the oral evidence of PW3 and by relying on Ex.X2, held that the deceased P. Kistaiah was getting a salary of Rs.18,643/- per month and as per the service register of the individual vide Ex.X4, the date of birth of the deceased is recorded as 09-07-1964 and thereby as on the date of death of the deceased in the alleged accident on 02.08.2013, he was '49' years. The Tribunal has taken 5 into consideration of the income of the deceased at Rs.18,643/- and added 30% towards future prospects and arrived at the notional income of Rs.24,235/- per month which is equal to Rs.2,90,830/- (Rs.24,235/- x 12) per annum. After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses arrived at an amount of Rs.2,18,123/- (Rs.2,90,830/- - Rs.72,702/- i.e., 1/4th of Rs.2,90,830/-) and by applying the multiplier '13' held that the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.28,35,599/- (Rs.2,18,123/- x 13) towards loss of dependency. The said award of compensation is just and reasonable and needs no interference.
10. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and the same are hereby modified as per the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS1 and MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM2'.
Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for an amount of 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 6 Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1 and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of funeral expenses, making up a total of Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Further, claimant Nos.2 to 4, who are children of the deceased, are entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each/- i.e., total Rs.1,20,000/- towards parental consortium and claimant No.5, mother of the deceased, is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium as per Magma's case (2 supra).
11. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.30,65,599/- (Rs.28,35,599/- + 70,000/- + 1,20,000/- + 40,000/-) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified, accordingly,
12. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 30,65,599/-. However, the claimants in the claim petition sought compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- only. The award of compensation now awarded is more than the amount claimed towards compensation and the same can be awarded by this court 7 when it is considered to be the just and compensation in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh3.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.28,95,599/- to Rs. Rs.30,65,599/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion in which the original compensation amounts were directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 01.11.2022 Yvk 3 2003 ACJ 12 (SC)