THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2991 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the II Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in O.P.No.2264 of 2009, dated 14.09.2012, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of U.Srinu @ Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a road accident that occurred on 02.09.2009. According to the appellants, while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle from Mulugu towards Masanpally side and when he reached R & B Bungalow in the village outskirts of Masanpally, one Auto Trolley bearing No.AP 29 U 8863, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from opposite direction. As a result, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 26 2 years, working as driver and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, they laid the claim against the respondents for Rs.20.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads.
3. Before the tribunal, while the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte, the respondent No. 2, insurance company, resisted the claim by filing counter and denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income. It is also contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.
4. After considering the claim, counter, additional counter and the evidence, both oral and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part awarding a compensation of Rs.6,30,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to be paid by both the respondents jointly and severally. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellants/claimants filed the present appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2, insurance company. Perused the material available on record.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in 3 National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the tribunal ought to have added future prospects at 40% to the established income of the deceased. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the deceased may be taken into consideration reasonably for assessing loss of dependency by adding future prospects and prayed to enhance the compensation. It is further submitted that the appellants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads. It is lastly contended that the claimant Nos. 2 & 3 being minor children and claimant Nos. 4 & 5 being parents of the deceased, ought to have been granted parental and filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others2.
7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and has rightly awarded the compensation which needs no interference by this Court. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4
8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.
9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the appellants claimed that the deceased was a driver and earning Rs.6,000/- per month the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- as the claimants did not produce any proof to show that the deceased was working as driver and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar3 the Apex Court held that even there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated. Since the deceased was aged about 26 years and he was able bodied person and as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the deceased was a driver, and the accident occurred in the year 2009, this Court inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, to the established income of the deceased. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2000/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards 3 (2001) 8 SCC 197 5 personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation4 as the dependents are five in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.5,250/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '17' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '17', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.5,250/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Apart from that, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra), the claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the minor children of the deceased, are granted parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, in all, the claimants are granted the compensation of Rs.12,28,000/-.
10. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of 4 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
11. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another5, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh6 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."
12. 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 should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
5 (2011) 10 SCC 756 6 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 7
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,30,000/- to Rs.12,28,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of order passed by the tribunal till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion as was ordered by the tribunal. However, the claimants are directed to pay deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. The amount shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation amount as per their share determined by the tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 25.11.2022.
tsr