THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MA.CMA.NO.176 OF 2017 &
CROSS-OBJECTION (SR).No.21696 OF 2018
JUDGMENT
Assailing the award and decree dated 27.9.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Tribunal -cum - III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in MVOP.No.2656 of 2013, the State of Telangana, which is the owner of the crime vehicle, filed MA.CMA.No.176 of 2017. Assailing the very same judgment, the claimants filed Cross-objection (SR).No.21696 of 2018 seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that claimant No.5
- Banoth Bikya, who is the father of the claimant No.1 and grandfather of claimants 2 to 4, and husband of claimant No.6 died on 31.12.2021, and he filed a memo to this effect enclosing a copy of the death certificate.
3. The deceased is one B.Lalitha and the claimant No.1 is her husband and claimants 2 to 4 are their children and claimant No.5 and 6 are her in-laws and however, as noted above, claimant No.5 died.
4. The case of the claimant is that on 2.9.2013 at about 7.30 pm., when the deceased was traveling as pillion rider and her brother Dharavath Heera was riding TVS XL bearing No. AP 29AQ 2358 and 2 that when they reached near Bata Showroom near Ayodhya Junction, Lakdikapool, DCM van bearing No. AP 9 P 3999 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed TVS XL from behind, due to which the deceased and the rider of the motorcycle/moped fell down and the deceased sustained fatal injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Vasavi Hospital, Khairtabad and after first aid, they were shifted to Sai Sanjeevani Hospital, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad, where the doctors declared the deceased as dead. Police registered the case in Cr.No.477/2013 under Section 304 (A) IPC.
5. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of the accident and prior to the accident, she was doing ground nut business and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/-. With these averments, the claimants filed claim petition, claiming an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-
6. The drive of the van filed counter affidavit and respondents 1 and 2 adopted the same. In the counter affidavit, while denying the manner of accident pleaded by the claimants, and also denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
3
7. The Tribunal considering the evidence on P.W.2, who was driving the moped at the time of accident, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., DCM van bearing registration No. AP 9P 3999. Further taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and after deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, and adding 50% future prospects, and by applying the multiplier of 17, as the deceased was found to be aged 30 years, granted an amount of Rs.10,32,750/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal further granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st claimant towards loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus, in all, granted an amount of Rs.12,57,750/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal also passed orders with regard to apportionment of compensation.
8. As stated above, aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the State filed the appeal and the claimants filed the cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the appellants submitted that the claimants have not filed any proof with regard to age, income and occupation of the deceased and 4 in these circumstances, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, and applying the multiplier of 17, by taking the age of the deceased as 30, cannot be sustained. He further submitted that the Tribunal granted the future prospects at the rate of 50%, which is excessive. He submits that the 1st claimant, who is the husband of the deceased, cannot be treated as the dependant on the deceased. He further submitted that the rider of the TVS XL is at fault, and there is no negligence on the part of the drive of the van. With these submissions, he sought to set aside the impugned order.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants Sri P.Rama Krishna Reddy, submitted that the deceased was a home maker and even in the absence of any evidence, her income can be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month which is very meager, and hence the same may be enhanced. With regard to other heads, the learned counsel supported the impugned judgment.
11. The case of the claimants is already noted at the threshold and in support of their claim that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., DCM Van bearing AP 9P 3999, they also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5, which are the certified copies of FIR, Charge Sheet, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Examination 5 report and MVI report. P.W.2 was riding the moped at the time of accident. He categorically deposed that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. The respondents before the Tribunal, which are the State authorities, have not chosen to lead any evidence, either oral or documentary, rebutting the evidence led by the claimants. Considering the evidence of P.W.2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5, the Tribunal recorded finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime van. Learned counsel for the appellant - State has not pointed out any contra evidence to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van, needs no interference.
12. Coming to quantum, the case of the claimant is that the deceased was aged 30 years, and was doing business in sale of groundnuts and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is to be noticed that as per Exs.A-1 to A-5, the age of the deceased is noted as 30 years. But with regard to income, no tangible evidence is filed. However, it is to be noticed that the deceased is a homemaker and the multifarious role of a homemaker is more than a skilled worker. Hence, in these circumstances, I am inclined to take the monthly income of the 6 deceased as Rs.5,500/- per month. The income of the deceased taken by the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- per month, is accordingly modified. Thus the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.66,000/- per month. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. PRANAY SETHI1, for the age group of the deceased, an addition of 40% has to be made to the established income of the deceased. But the Tribunal granted 50% towards future prospects, and hence in light of the judgment of the Apex Court (1) the same is accordingly modified and future prospects are taken at 40%. 40% of 66,000/- comes to Rs.26,400/-. Thus the annual income of the deceased including future prospects comes to Rs.92,400/-.
13. The number of claimants, who are the dependants of the deceased are five in number, and as such deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased shall be at the rate of 1/4th. If 1/4th is deducted from Rs.92,4000/-, the income that the deceased would be contributing to his family comes to Rs.69,300/-.
14. The deceased is found to be aged 30 years, and hence as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SMT. SARLA VARMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION2, the appropriate multiplier is '17'. 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 2 (2009)6 SCC 121 7 Thus the loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,78,100/- (Rs.69,300/- x 17 = Rs.11,78,100/-).
15. Further as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus the amounts granted under these heads by the Tribunal are accordingly modified.
16. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the decision reported in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v NANU RAM3, the claimants 2 to 4, who are minors at the time of accident, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. Thus, they are entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- under this head.
17. Thus, the amount of Rs.12,57,750/- granted by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.13,75,100/- (Rs.11,78,100/- + Rs.77,000/- + Rs.1,20,000/- = Rs.13,75,100/-.)
18. The appellants in MACMA.No.176 of 2017 are liable to pay the compensation. The compensation amount shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3 (2018)18 SCC 130 8
19. The apportionment of the compensation among the claimants shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. Further, the order of the Tribunal with regard to deposit of the amount in nationalized bank and its withdrawal is confirmed. Since claimant No.5 died, his share of compensation shall be paid to claimants 2 to 4, who are the children of the deceased, in equal ratio.
20. Any amount already deposited by the appellants, shall be given credit to. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee.
21. As there is modification with regard to future prospects and also the amounts granted under conventional heads, the appeal filed by the State is partly allowed, and similarly as there is enhancement of compensation, the cross-objections are allowed to the extent indicated above.
21. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
-----------------------------------------------
M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J DATE:24--11--2022 AVS 9