HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2102 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in O.P. No.2146 of 2012, dated 31.10.2014, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioners, on 13.07.2012 at about 5-40 p.m. the deceased Tulasi was proceeding as pillion rider on the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. AP.28.AE.7293 being driven by her husband towards their residence at Dasireddygudem and when they reached in front of Gowthami Ladies Hostel on National Highway No.163 of Bhongir Town, lorry bearing No. HR.55.Q.3276 came from their back side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed their motorcycle, due to which Tulasi sustained fatal injuries all over the body and died on the spot and her husband sustained severe injuries all over his body. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the 2 respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. HR.55.Q.3276 causing death of B.Tulasi?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, for what extent and from whom?
3. To what relief?
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-The United India Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record.
7. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,37,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against the respondents herein who are 3 owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally, along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, as against the claim of Rs.15 lakhs.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and Exs.A.1 to A.8, established the fact that the death of the deceased-Tulasi was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering the learned Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No. HR.55.Q.3276. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 4 driver of the offending vehicle. Now the only dispute is enhancement of compensation.
11. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was doing tailoring work and earning Rs.10,000/-. However, as there is no income proof, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is very less. However, considering the avocation of the deceased, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are also entitled to the future prospects and since the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.8,400/-. Since the deceased left as many as three persons as the dependants, 1/3rd of her income is to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.5,600/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 Corporation2 would be "17". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.5,600/- x 12 x 17 =Rs.11,42,400/-. In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are minor children of the deceased are entitled for Rs.50,000/- each as filial consortium as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.13,19,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No. HR.tt.Q.3276 and it was insured with the second respondent under Ex.B1 covering the date of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 from Rs.6,37,000/- to Rs.13,19,400/-. 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 respondents jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit of compensation amount by the respondents, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 15.11.2022 pgp