THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2854 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Road Transport Corporation, questioning the judgment and decree, dated 20.06.2016 made in O.P.No.109 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Godavarikhani (for short, the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents on account of death of the deceased, Bejjanki Madhusudhan, in the accident that occurred on 06.10.2010 involving the bus bearing No. AP 28Z 5708 being driven by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2. According to the claimnats, on the fateful day, while the deceased was driving his car towards Karimnagar to Hyderabad, the offending bus came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manny and dashed the car. As a result, the deceased 2 MGP, J Macma_2854_2016 sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 29 years, working as car driver and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, they laid the claim for Rs.10.00 lakhs against the respondents.
4. While the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte, the respondent No. 2 contested the claim petition. After considering the claim, counter and the evidence brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.11,68,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum and costs to be paid by the respondent No. 2. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred by the respondent No. 2-RTC.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
6. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-RTC is that in the absence of any proof as to the income of the deceased, the learned tribunal ought not to have taken the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. It is further contended that the tribunal ought not to have taken the multiplier '17' without there being any evidence adduced by the claimants to prove the age of the deceased as 29 years. 3
MGP, J Macma_2854_2016 Further, it is contended that as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, since the deceased was self-employed, the future prospects, considering the age of the deceased, should be 40%, but the tribunal has erroneously added 50%. Even, the amounts awarded by the tribunal under the conventional heads are excessive and it should be Rs.77,000/- only. It is lastly contended that the rate of interest fixed by the tribunal at 9% is too high and it should not be more than 6%.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has sought to sustain the impugned order contending that the monthly income of the deceased assessed by the tribunal at Rs.4,500/- is, in fact, not on par with the prevailing minimum wages and that considering the fact that there are five dependants, the tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th but not 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased from the monthly gross income. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for dismisal of the appeal. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 4 MGP, J Macma_2854_2016
8. Insofar as the manner in which the accident took place is concerned, a perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the offending bus, and having considered the evidence of P.W.2, eyewitness, coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending bus 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 in this regard.
9. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, admittedly, the claimants have not let in any evidence, either oral or documentary, to prove their claim that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month by working as car driver. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar2, the Apex Court has held that even there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated. Since the deceased was aged about 29 years at the time of accident and he was able 2 (2001) 8 SCC 197 5 MGP, J Macma_2854_2016 bodied person, the tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, which, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be higher. Admittedly, the deceased was 29 years at the time of the accident. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the tribunal ought to have added future prospects to the established income of the deceased at 40%, but not 50%. Therefore, by adding 40% future prospects to the established monthly income of the deceased i.e., Rs.4,500/-, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/-. Inasmuch as there are five dependents, the tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th but not 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after dedcuting 1/4th from the monthly gross income of the deceased, the net monthly income that was being contributed to the family would be Rs.4,725/- (Rs.6300 minus Rs.1,572/- being 1/4th therefrom). Thus, the annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.56,700/-. As per Ex.A.4, Post-Mortem Examination Report, the age of the deceased was 29 years and therefore, the tribunal has rgihtly applied the multiplier '17'. Thus, by applying the multiplier '17', the loss of dependency 6 MGP, J Macma_2854_2016 comes to Rs.9,63,900/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the conventional heads i.e., consortium & love and affection to claimant Nos. 4 & 5 is restricted to Rs.77,000/-. However, the minor children i.e., claimant Nos. 2 & 3 are granted Rs.50,000/- each, towards parental consortium in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.11,40,900/-. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others4. Hence, the interest granted by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum is reduced to 7.5% per annum.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part reducing the compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.11,68,000/- to 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 7 MGP, J Macma_2854_2016 Rs.11,40,900/- in addition to reducing the interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.
____________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 18.10.2022 Tsr/pss 8 MGP, J Macma_2854_2016 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No.2854 of 2016 DATE: 18-10-2022