THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.2157 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the award dated 11.05.2017 in M.V.O.P.No.553 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed by appellants herein seeking compensation was allowed-in-part, awarding Rs.4,91,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.
3. The appellants herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased Kurva Arjunappa, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.12.2014 at 08:30 p.m. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased and his villagers started from their village Kondareddypalli in order to go to ACC cements office, Kodangal by walk and when the deceased reached near Lahoti Colony Arch 2 at about 10:30 a.m., meanwhile, the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 28 AR 7504 with trolley No.AP 22 X 3136, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from Kodangal bus stand towards Ravulapally village side and dashed the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased received grievous injuries. He was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Kodangal for treatment and later to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad and on the way, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Police, Kodangal registered a case in Cr.No.167 of 2014 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the tractor. Claimant No.1 is the husband and claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 48 years as on the date of accident and working as Hamali at ACC cements godown at Pyalamaddi and earning Rs.300/- per day and contributing the same to his family.
4. Respondent No.1 - owner of the tractor and respondent No.2- insurer, filed counters opposing the claim and denying its liability to pay the compensation.
5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash 3 and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The said finding had become final, as no appeal is preferred by the respondents questioning the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,91,000/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 9% per annum. Not satisfied with the same, the claimants field the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. It is not disputed that the first claimant is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Hamali at ACC Cements godown and earning Rs.300/- per day and was contributing the same to his family. The claimants have not filed any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.300/- per day. However, the Tribunal has considered the oral evidence on record and fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,500/-. Though learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the income of the deceased should be fixed at Rs.300/- per day and at Rs.9,000/- per month, as he was working as Hamali in ACC Cements. Admittedly, the evidence on record discloses that there is no 4 document to prove the actual income of the deceased and the claimants ought to have collected the remuneration register paid to Hamalies in ACC cements to substantiate their contention, however, they failed to do so. The Tribunal had rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, basing on the oral evidence. The said fixation of income is either excessive or unreasonable. The Tribunal, basing on the post-mortem report-Ex.A-3, held that the age of the deceased was shown as 48 years and as per the claim petition, the age of the deceased is shown as 45 years. The Tribunal had taken the age of the deceased in between 46-50 years, but, however, applied the multiplier '11'. The appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1, would be '13'. As there is no proper documentary evidence about the exact age of the deceased, the Tribunal rightly had taken into consideration Exs.A-3 and A-6 and applied the multiplier '11', as the deceased was in age group of 46-50 years. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.
1 2009(6) SCC 121 5 PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS2, if 25% is added towards future prospects, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,625/- per month (Rs.4,500 + Rs.1,125/-). After deducting one-third towards personal expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.3,750/- per annum (Rs.5,625/- - Rs.1,875/-) and Rs.45,000/- per annum. If multiplier '13' is applied, the loss of dependency of the claimants works out to Rs.5,85,000/- (Rs.45,000/- x 13).
7. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the conventional head have to be modified in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM3'.
Accordingly, claimant No.1 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. The said quantified amounts under 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 6 conventional heads should be enhanced at the rate of 10% for a span of every three years, as per the above decision. Thus, the claimants are entitled for 20% enhancement i.e., Rs.84,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + Rs.14,000/- i.e., 20% of Rs.70,000/-). So far as awarding of compensation to claimants 2 and 3 under parental consortium is concerned, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- insurer would submit that as per the decision of the Apex Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. VINISH JAIN AND OTHERS4, major sons are not entitled for any compensation towards loss of love and affection. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,69,000/- (Rs.5,85,000 + Rs.84,000/-).
8. On the above conclusions, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,91,000/- to Rs.6,69,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award passed by the Tribunal i.e., 11.05.2017 till realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The claimants shall pay deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the claim is for Rs.6,00,000/-. 4 (2018) 3 SCC 619 7 If the deficit court fee is not paid as per Rule 475 of the M.V. Rules before the Tribunal, the claimant is not entitled for execution of Award in respect of enhanced compensation. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 14.10.2022 Lrkm