HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2400 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No.111 of 2009 dated 18-11-2013, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioner, on 16-11-2008 in the mid night, the deceased-Afsar Jahar Begum and the petitioner were going on motorcycle and when they reached Mahaboob Mansion, Malakpet, lorry bearing No. AP.28.X.1654 came in a rash and negligent manner being driven by its driver and dashed their motorcycle, as a result, the deceased fell down and the lorry ran over her and she received grievous injuries. Immediately she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and later she died. Thus, the petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under various heads.
2
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the claim is excessive.
5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues:
1) Whether the accident resulting in death of Afsar Jahar Begum occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP.28.X.1654?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the issues, petitioner was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, however, copy of insurance policy marked as Ex.B1.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,17,500/- towards compensation to the appellant-claimant against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, along with costs 3 and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, as against the claim of Rs.6 lakhs.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent- Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that although the claimant established the fact that the death of the deceased-Afsar Jahar Begum was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal after considering all aspects has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
11. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no dispute. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence on record has 4 rightly held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs on the ground that the deceased was a private employee and getting Rs.7,800/- per month and contributing the same to her family. Though the petitioner filed Ex.A7 salary certificate issued by Proprietor, Zum Trading Company, the author of Ex.A7 was not examined to prove the same. However, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, which appears to be too less. Hence, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Further, future prospectus was not considered by the Tribunal. Thus, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimant is entitled to future prospects @ 40% of her income, since the deceased was aged 23 years. Then it comes to Rs.7,000/- (5,000 + 2,000 = 7,000/-). Since the petitioner is the sole dependant, 50% of her income is to be deducted 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 towards her personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.3,500/-. Since the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 would be "18". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,56,000/-. In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimant is granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, in all, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.4,17,500/- to Rs.8,33,000/-.
13. With regard to the liability, the tribunal rightly held that since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was insured with the respondent No.2-Insurance Company and the policy was in force as on the date of accident, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,17,500/- to Rs.8,33,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant shall pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the initial claim was for Rs.6,00,000/-. On such payment of court fee only, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ SMT.M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 04.11.2022 pgp