THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3083 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 24.04.2014 passed in O.P.No.62 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda (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 Meravath Suresh 5 years old, (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), filed claim- petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.10.2008. It is stated that on 19.10.2018, the claimant No.1 and the deceased were proceeding in Auto bearing 2 MGP, J Macma_3083_2014 No.AP 24 W 7224 to go to private hospital at Haliya and when they reached Dayyalagandi at about 12:00 noon, the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 24 W 7224 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which the deceased and one Sakri fallen from the auto on the road and the deceased sustained injuries and died. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.79 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the Auto. The deceased is the son of the claimants and therefore, the claimants filed the aforesaid O.P. against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, Auto.
4. The Tribunal, considering the claim and the counter filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, has partly allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.1,23,000/- with interest at 9% per annum payable by respondent No.2. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
3
MGP, J Macma_3083_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 Auto by its driver, duly considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A1, F.I.R. and Ex.A6, charge sheet, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto 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 Auto.
7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly, the deceased was aged about five years at the time of accident. Recently, in Kurvan Ansari 4 MGP, J Macma_3083_2014 Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu1, 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 five 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 five 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 Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded goes beyond the claim made, which is impermissible under law. 1 Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (SC) 5 MGP, J Macma_3083_2014
10. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another2, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh3 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 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 2 (2011) 10 SCC 756 3 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 6 MGP, J Macma_3083_2014 enhanced from Rs.1,23,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order 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 29.11.2022 tsr 7 MGP, J Macma_3083_2014 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No.3083 of 2014 DATE: 29-11-2022