Smt. Sabera Begurn vs Chakali Narsirnhulu

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

         M.A.C.M.A.No.1744 OF 2019 & 1774 OF 2016

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      M.A.C.M.A.No.1744 of 2019 is directed against the award

dated 18.04.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.310 of 2014, on the file of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,

Medak, at Sangareddy, (for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the

said claim application filed by appellants-claimants seeking

compensation was allowed-in-part, awarding Rs.7,75,000/- with

interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

M.A.C.M.A.No.1774 of 2016 is filed by the appellant-insurer

aggrieved by the said award.

2.    Heard learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel

for the insurer, in both the cases. Perused the record.

3.    Claimants    1   to   3   filed   claim   application   seeking

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of the

deceased Mohd. Ismail, who died in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 07.04.2014 at 09:30 a.m., on the limits of Budhera

cross roads, in front of MGV Bank on NH-65. Claimant No.1 is
                                 2



the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of the

deceased.   According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased

was proceeding on his TVS XL Super two wheeler bearing No.AP

28 BN 8097 from Hyderabad towards Mamidipally Village and

when he reached the limits of Budhera X Road, in front of

Manjeera Grameena Bank on NH-65, meanwhile one TVS XL

Super bearing No.AP 23 J 0392, driven by its rider in a rash and

negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed the

motorcycle of the deceased.     As a result of the accident, the

deceased sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted

to Balaji Hospital, Sangareddy and from there to Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad, where he succumbed to injuries.        Police,

Munipally registered a case in Cr.No.36 of 2014 against the rider

of TVS XL Super bearing No.AP 23 J 0392, i.e., crime vehicle for

the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and later filed

charge sheet. The deceased hale and healthy at the time of accident

and was running a bakery under the name and style 'Tajmahal

Bakery at Shriram Nagar, Jagathgirigutta, Hyderabad and was

earning Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute all his

earnings on the claimants.
                                   3



4.    The owner of the crime vehicle i.e., two wheeler remained

ex parte before the Tribunal.      The insurer crime vehicle filed

counter opposing the claim and denying its liability to pay the

compensation.

5.    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 crime vehicle by its rider.      The

Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total

compensation of Rs.7,75,000/-. Accordingly, an award was passed

for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied

with the same, the claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.1744 of 2019

seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the insurer filed

M.A.C.M.A.No.1774 of 2016 on the ground that the Tribunal erred

in taking the age of the deceased at 35 years instead of 45 years

stated by the claimants in the claim application.

6.    The points for determination are -

      (i)    whether        the   appellants-claimants   in
             M.A.C.M.A.No.1744 of 2019 are entitled for
             enhancement of compensation, and if so to
             what extent?
                                   4



      (ii)   whether the Tribunal committed error in
             computing the compensation by taking the
             age of the deceased at 35 years instead of
             45 years as stated by the claimants in their
             claim application?

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

7.    The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due

to the rash and negligent driving of the offending i.e., two wheeler

by its rider is not seriously disputed. According to the claimants,

the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was

doing bakery business, earning Rs.10,000/- per month and was

contributing the entire earnings to the maintenance and welfare of

his family. It is not in dispute that claimant No.1 is the wife and

claimants 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of the deceased.

Though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month from bakery business, there is no proper

reliable evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate the

contention that he was earning said amount.          However, the

Tribunal had taken into consideration the oral evidence of the

claimants and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.6,000/- per month and after deducting one-third towards
                                  5



personal expenses, arrived at the contribution of the deceased to

his family at Rs.4,000/- (Rs.6,000/- - Rs.2,000/- i.e., 1/3 of

Rs.6,000/-).


8.    The evidence on record shows that the deceased was aged

'45' years.    However, the Tribunal had taken the age of the

deceased as '35' and calculated the compensation without

any valid reasons.     The claimants in their claim application

have also shown the age of the deceased as '45' years. Moreover,

the age of claimant No.1, who is wife of the deceased, is shown as

40 years in the claim application. Considering the same, the age

of the deceased is taken as '45' years for computing the

compensation. By adding additional 40% towards future income

of the deceased, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.

PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS1, the same works out to

Rs.5,600/- per month (Rs.4000/- + Rs.1,600/- i.e., 40% of

Rs.4,000/-) and Rs.67,200/- per annum. The appropriate multiplier

applicable to the age of the deceased is '14', as per the decision of



12017 ACJ 2700
                                 6



the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI

TRANSPORT CORPORATION2.                Thus, the loss of future

earnings can be computed at Rs.9,40,800/- (Rs.67,200/- x 14).

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards

conventional heads and parental consortium. As per the decision

of the Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI's case (1 supra), the

claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards

conventional heads i.e., Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium,

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenses. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.

NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM3, claimant Nos.2 and 3 being

the children of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each

towards parental consortium.    Thus, in all, the claimants are

entitled Rs.10,90,800/- (Rs.9,40,800/-+Rs.70,000/-+Rs.80,000/-).

The impugned award is modified accordingly.

9.       Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1744 of 2019 is allowed

enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,75,000/- Rs.10,90,800/-.


2
    2009(6) SCC 121
3   2018 Law Suit (SC) 904
                                   7



The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date

of award passed by the Tribunal i.e., 18.04.2016 till realization,

payable by owner of the crime vehicle and the insurer jointly and

severally. The claimants shall pay deficit court fee on

the enhanced compensation. The amount of compensation shall be

apportioned among the claimants in the ratio as ordered by the

Tribunal.    Insofar as M.A.C.M.A.No.1744 of 2019 filed by the

insurer, the same is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

10.    Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.


                                        _______________________
                                        A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J
04.11.2022

Lrkm