THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2999 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 08.10.2012 made in M.V.O.P.No.181 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar (for short "the Tribunal), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who are the parents of one M.A.Turab 2 ½ years old, (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), filed claim-petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.01.2011. It is stated that on 29.01.2011 while the deceased and his mother were waiting by the side of the 2 MGP, J Macma_2999_2014 road at A.P.H.B. Colony Bus Stop, Jadcherla at about 2:30 p.m., one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 22 W 7545 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, due to which he died on the spot. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.33 of 2011 was registered against the driver of the bus. The deceased is the son of the claimants and therefore, the claimants filed the aforesaid O.P. against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the owner, insurer and the hirer of the offending vehicle, bus.
4. The Tribunal, considering the claim and the counters filed by the insurer and hirer of the offending vehicle, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, has partly allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed the claim against respondent No.3-R.T.C. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
3
MGP, J Macma_2999_2014
5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the Tribunal having framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C. bus by its driver, duly considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus and has answered the issue in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus.
7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was aged about two and half years at the time of accident. In Kishan Gopal 4 MGP, J Macma_2999_2014 and another v. Lala and others1, the Apex Court having considered the grant of compensation in similar circumstances, has awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of a 10 year old boy. Recently, in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu2, the Apex Court has awarded an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- by fixing the notional income of the deceased boy, who was aged about 10 years, at Rs.25,000/- and multiplied by '15'.
8. In the instant case, the deceased was two and half years old boy. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu (supra) and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, considering the fact that the deceased was 2 ½ years old at the time of the accident, I deem it just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- to the claimants.
9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of 1 (2014) 1 SCC 244 2 Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (SC) 5 MGP, J Macma_2999_2014 Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is impermissible under law.
10. 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."
11. 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 beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts 3 (2011) 10 SCC 756 4 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 6 MGP, J Macma_2999_2014 should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,85,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. The claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts. 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 M.G. PRIYADARSINI 23.11.2022 tsr 7 MGP, J Macma_2999_2014 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No.2999 of 2014 DATE: 23-11-2022