HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2754 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No. 9 of 2011 dated 14.05.2013, 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 27.04.2010 at about 2-00 p.m. while the deceased R.Ramesh was proceeding in Tata Ace bearing No. AP.28.TV.1006 from Bachapally side to Reddy labs side and when he reached near to Reddy labs, at the same time, lorry bearing No.HR 38 P 9142 being driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the Tata Ace from opposite direction, as a result, he received grievous injuries and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment and 2 while undergoing treatment, the deceased died. Hence the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
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 pleaded accident dated 27.04.2010 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No. HR 38 P 9142 and whether the deceased R.Ramesh died due to the said accident?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what quantum and whether crime vehicle was owned by first respondent and insured with second respondent and what is the liability of respondents 1 and 2?
3) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of respondents, no 3 witnesses were examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,47,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1- 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.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6, established the fact that the death of the deceased-R.Ramesh was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meagre amount.
10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering 4 the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
11. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident. However, on considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 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.
12. Here it is pertinent to state that originally the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1989. But the tribunal without assigning any reason framed issue under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and decided the issue in favour of the petitioners. However, based on the evidence on record, the Court can consider Section 166 instead of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. In Bhupati Prameela and others vs. Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and others1, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:
" Thus it appears that it is the duty of the Courts to do justice to the parties and while doing justice, if the technicalities come in the way, much importance need not be given to these technicalities because, ultimately, justice has to be done to the parties. Moreover, when sub-section(4) of Section 166 of the Act envisages that the Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act as an application for compensation under the Act, there is nothing wrong in treating an application filed under Section 163-A of the Act as an 1 (2011) 10 SCC 756 5 application under Section 166 of the Act. In view of the above and considering the object of the Act, we are of the view that the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act can be treated as an application under Section 166 of the Act."
In view of the above Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act can be treated as an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was a labourer and was getting Rs.4,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to his family. The tribunal erred in considering the deceased as a labourer and has treated the deceased as a student and taken his notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. A perusal of the entire record clearly shows that the deceased was a labourer. Hence the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 40% of his income, since the deceased was aged above 20 years. Then it comes to Rs.5,600/- . Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his income is to be 2 2017 ACJ 2700 6 deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.2,800/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 20 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 Corporation3 would be "18". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.2,800/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.6,04,800/-. In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are granted Rs.33,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, in all, the compensation is awarded as follows:
Sl.No. Description of the item Amount awarded
1. Loss of dependency (Rs.2,800/- x 6,04,800-00
12 x 18 = Rs.6,04,800/-)
2. Conventional heads 33,000-00
Total: Rs.6,37,800-00
14. With regard to the liability, the tribunal rightly held that by the time of accident, the insurance policy of the crime vehicle was in force and as such, respondent Nos.1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the offending lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7
15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,47,000/- to Rs.6,37,800-00. 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 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 .10.2022 pgp