THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2807 of 2014
JUDGMENT :
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad vide order dated 15.07.2013 in M.V.O.P. No. 1733 of 2011, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
2. On 27.02.2009, at about 0530 hours, while the deceased, Kartami Vella and others were proceeding on borewell lorry bearing No. AP 29BD 9288, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, from Masanguda to another place as labourer, when the lorry reached near Masanguda outskirts, the driver drove the lorry at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the lorry turned turtle. The deceased received multiple injuries all over the body and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was 25 years, working as borewell labour under respondent No. 1 and earning Rs.6,500/- per month. Therefore, they laid a claim for Rs.8.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads.
3. The learned Tribunal, considering the claim of the appellants, counter filed by the Insurance Company and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the O.P., awarding a total 2 compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by the respondents within three months from the date of said order.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2. Perused the material available on record.
5. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants- claimants has argued that in order to substantiate their claim that the deceased was earning Rs.6,500/- per month as borewell labourer under respondent No. 1, they have filed Ex.A.7, salary certificate, but the tribunal has erroneously fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- which is very meagre. Further, relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the learned counsel has contended that to the existing income of the deceased, 40% ought to have been added towards future prospects. Even the amount granted under conventional heads is too meagre and needs enhancement as per the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the learned counsel seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
1 2017 ACJ 2700 3
6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2, has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver in causing the accident on 27.02.2009 that resulted in the death of the deceased. As regards quantum of compensation, as seen from the record, the claimants-appellants had claimed that the deceased was working as borewell labourer under respondent No. 1 and getting Rs.6,500/- per month as salary. To substantiate their claim, they have produced Ex.A.7, salary certificate. However, the said salary certificate was not issued by respondent No. 1, but it was issued by M/s. Jalashaya Drillers and they have also not chosen to examine any person in connection with Ex.A.7. In such circumstances, the tribunal did not believe Ex.A.7 and fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. However, considering the fact that his employment under respondent No. 1 was not disputed by the employer and considering the prevailing minimum wages at the relevant point of time and as he was skilled labourer, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. Since the deceased was 25 years, as seen from Ex.A.2 to A.4, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), to 4 the actual income of the deceased, 40% needs to be added towards future prospects. Hence, the future income of the deceased is Rs.7,000/- per month (Rs.5,000 + Rs.2,000 being 40% thereof). As the dependents are four in number, after deducting 1/4th therefrom towards personal expenses of the deceased, the net monthly future income of the deceased is Rs.5,250/- and the annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.63,000/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, considering the age of the deceased as 25 years, the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Therefore, taking the same into consideration, the total loss of dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.11,34,000/-. Thus, under the head of loss of dependency, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.11,34,000/-, as against Rs.8,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, as against the amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). That apart, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3, the claimant Nos.2 & 3 being the minor children of the deceased, are granted parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 Thus, in all, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.12,91,000/-, as against Rs.8,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.12,91,000/-. 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, 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 respondents shall deposit the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the initial claim was for Rs.8,00,000/-. If the deficit court fee is not paid as per Rule 475 of M.V.Rules before the Tribunal, the claimants are not entitled for execution of Award in respect of enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 25.11.2022 tsr 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No. 2807 of 2014 DATE:25-11-2022