THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2758 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") in O.P.No.1432 of 2011 vide order and decree, dated 11.11.2014, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that originally, the petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident that took place on 17.02.2011. During the pendency of the claim-petition, the petitioner No. 1 died and the petitioner No. 2, the appellant herein, came on record as legal representative of the petitioner No. 1. It is stated that on 17.02.2011, while the deceased was proceeding in Auto 2 MGP, J Macma_2758_2015 bearing No.AP 24 V 5998 from Thummagudem to Valigonda and when the auto reached the outskirts of Khammagudem village, one D.C.M. Vehicle bearing No.AP 29 V 3870, owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the auto. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over her body and immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally and from there she was again shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where she took treatment as inpatient. On a complaint, the Police, Valigonda, registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2012 against the driver of the DCM Van, for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. The record reveals that after filing of the petition, due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, she died on 22.10.2011. While the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte, the respondent No. 2 contested the claim denying 3 MGP, J Macma_2758_2015 the averments made in the claim petition as to the age, avocation and income of the deceased.
4. After considering the claim and the counter filed by respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- with interest at 7.5% interest per annum to be paid by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Being not satisfied with the said compensation, the appellant filed the present appeal.
5. Heard and perused the material available record.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that although the appellant claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing stone cutting work, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.125/- per day which is very meager. It is further contended that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited 4 MGP, J Macma_2758_2015 Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the appellant is also entitled to future prospects and also Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company submits that since the deceased was a housewife, the Tribunal has rightly discarded the future prospects. It is further contended that the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.15,000/- under the conventional heads, which needs no interference by this Court.
8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.
9. A perusal of the material available on record would show that as per Ex.A2, inquest report and Ex.A3, Post Mortem Examination Report, the age of the deceased was 20 years. In Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 MGP, J Macma_2758_2015 Bihar and others2, the Apex Court had observed that considering the multifarious services rendered by housewives, even on a modest estimation, the income of housewives, between the age group of 34 to 59 years, who were active in life, should be assessed at Rs.36,000/- per annum. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident. Hence, in view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, the income of the deceased is to be fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month.
10. Insofar as the future prospects to the housewives are concerned, the Apex Court recently in Kirti and another etc. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.3 made certain general observations regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation, which can be summarized as follows: 2
AIR 2001 SC 3218 3 AIR 2021 SC 353 6 MGP, J Macma_2758_2015 "a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.
b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all. c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally. 7
MGP, J Macma_2758_2015 e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation."
11. In view of above said decision, the appellant is entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40%.
12. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation4, the suitable multiplier would be '18'. If the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month is taken as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Lata Wadwa case (supra) and if 40% of the income is added to the actual income of the deceased towards future prospects, the total income of the deceased would be Rs.7,000/- per annum. From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). After deducting 4 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 8 MGP, J Macma_2758_2015 1/3rd amount towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.4,667/- per month. Applying multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.4,667/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.10,08,072/- which is rounded off to Rs.10,08,000/-. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellant is entitled to Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled to Rs.10,85,000/-.
13. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the appellant claimed only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
14. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and 9 MGP, J Macma_2758_2015 another5, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh6 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."
15. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the appellant is 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 appellant is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the appellant to a just and reasonable extent.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby 5 (2011) 10 SCC 756 6 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 10 MGP, J Macma_2758_2015 enhanced from Rs.5,25,000/- to Rs.10,85,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, the appellant is 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 .10.2022 tsr