HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2386 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in M.V.O.P.No.21 of 2013 dated 23.01.2015, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioners, on 23.11.2012 at about 10- 00 a.m. while the deceased was proceeding from ECIL towards Thurkapally on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 09 N 7600 and when he reached the outskirts of Kajipet village on Thurkapally ECIL, BT Road, one paddy harvester bearing No. AP 24 N 8171 being driven by its driver came from extreme right side in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle, due to which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment but he died while undergoing treatment on the same day at about 1-40 p.m. According to the petitioners, the deceased was running dry 2 cleaners and laundry shop and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in the death of the deceased due to any rash or negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., paddy harvester bearing registration No. AP 24 N 8171 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
7. Heard the learned Standing counsel for the appellant- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and the learned 3 Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5-appellants. Perused the material available on record.
8. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,21,200/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against the respondents herein who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally, along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against the claim of Rs.10 lakhs.
9. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that though the petitioners failed to produce any evidence to show the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and awarded Rs.15,21,000/- which is very excessive.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and Exs.A.1 to A.5, established the fact that the death of the deceased-K.Venkatesh @ Venkat was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount. 4
11. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e., paddy harvester bearing No. AP 24 N 8171. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the paddy harvester. Now the only dispute is enhancement of compensation.
12. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was running laundry shop and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, as there is no income proof, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. But the Tribunal added 50% of his income towards future prospectus instead of 40%. Hence, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to the future prospects @ 40% since the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident. Then it comes to Rs.8,400/- (6,000 + 2,400 = 8,400). Since the deceased left as many as five persons as the dependants, 1/4th of his income is 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.6,300/- (8,400 - 2,100 = 6,300) per month. Since the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 would be "16". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.6,300/- x 12 x 16 =Rs.12,09,600/-. In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are minor children of the deceased are also entitled to filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per the Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.13,66,600/-.
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by reducing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.15,21,000/- to Rs.13,66,600/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The amount 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 6 of compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants- claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall pay the deficit court fee. On such deposit of compensation amount by the respondents, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 29.11.2022 pgp