HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3397 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge at Kamareddy in M.V.O.P. No.13 of 2015 dated 14.03.2019, the present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioners, on 28-09-2014 the deceased Sayavva along with her husband/petitioner No.1 were going to their fields at about 10-00 a.m. on foot and when they reached near MPDO Office, SS Nagar, at the same time one car bearing No. AP.10.AS.9909 came from Kamareddy side and proceeding towards Nizamabad in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed Sayavva with its front portion, due to which she fell down on the road and was ran over by car, as a result, she sustained fracture to skull, both bones of right leg, right hand and left hand and 3rd to 6th ribs right side and died on the spot. 2 Hence the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident pleaded by the claimants and also the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the claim is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues:
1) Whether the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No. AP.10.AS.9909?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, for what amount and whether in such accident, the deceased died due to sustaining of injuries?
3) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the issues, PW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of respondents, no witnesses were examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
3
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,16,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent- Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.9, established the fact that the death of the deceased-Jogini Sayavva was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
4
11. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident. However, on considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Then the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was attending agricultural works and used to raise and sell vegetables and fruits and was getting Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing the same to her family. However, the Tribunal had rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- but not considered the future prospects. Thus, in the 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 future prospects @ 10% of his income, since the deceased was aged above 50 years. Then it comes to Rs.4,950/-. Since the deceased left as many as four persons as the dependants, 1/4th of her income is to be deducted towards her personal and living 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.3,713/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 50 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 would be "13". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.3713/- x 12 x 13 =Rs.5,79,228/-. 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). Thus, in all, the compensation is awarded as follows:
Sl.No. Description Amount awarded
1. Loss of dependency Rs.5,79,228-00
(Rs.3713/- x 12 x 13
=Rs.5,79,228/-)
2. Conventional heads Rs. 77,000-00
Total: Rs.6,56,228-00
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,16,000/- to Rs.6,56,228-00. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 and 2 jointly and severally. The amount 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. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 26.10.2022 pgp