THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1766 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 29.12.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2282 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts, in issue, are as under:
4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of one Md. Asif (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.07.2012. It is stated that on 31.07.2012 while the deceased, along with his friend, was proceeding to Hyderabad on a motorcycle, when they reached the outskirts of Kamkolu village, the crime vehicle i.e., Car bearing No.AP 23X 2623, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and 2 MGP, J Macma_1766_2015 negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle, resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 23 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as motorcycle mechanic. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car, the claimants filed the claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said Car.
5. Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No.1 remained ex parte, respondent No.2 filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Considering claim, counter and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Car and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the claimants seeking enhancement.
3
MGP, J Macma_1766_2015
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that since the claimants have asserted that the deceased was motorcycle mechanic and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the avocation of the deceased and the income, but however, fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month treating him as coolie. It is further contended that the claimant No.1, being the mother of the deceased, ought to have been granted filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others1. Further, as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects to the established income of the deceased. It is lastly contended that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% is meagre and the same needs to be enhanced to 7.5% per annum.
9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2, Insurance company, has contended that in the absence of producing any evidence, either oral or documentary, to 1 (2018) 18 SCC 130 2 2017 ACJ 2700 4 MGP, J Macma_1766_2015 prove the avocation of the deceased as motorcycle mechanic and his earnings, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased Rs.4,500/- per month. It is further contended that since the deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident, the Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3rd instead of 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased and has also erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.32,000/- towards consortium.
10. 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 by either of the respondents.
11. As regards the quantum of compensation, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was a motorcycle mechanic and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, since the claimants did not substantiate the claim that the deceased was working as motorcycle mechanic by adducing any evidence, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month considering the avocation of the deceased as coolie, which needs no interference by this Court. Considering the fact that the deceased was 23 years old at the time of the accident, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the future 5 MGP, J Macma_1766_2015 monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1800/-). From this, 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3 since he was a bachelor. After deducting 50% therefrom towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.3,150/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was 23 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Adopting multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.3,150/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.6,80,400/-. That apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, under the head of filial consortium, the claimant No.1, being mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.40,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra). Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,53,400/-.
12. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others4, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 6 MGP, J Macma_1766_2015 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization but not 6% as was awarded by the Tribunal.
13. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.8,54,000/- to Rs.8,69,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of order by the Tribunal till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time to deposit the entire compensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the major claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J .10.2022 Tsr