HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 750 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No. 1270 of 2011, dated 18.02.2015, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The appellants filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of P. Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a road accident that occurred on 24.06.20109. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle as pillion rider, when the motorcycle reached near Arts College, the crime vehicle i.e., DCM Van bearing No. AP 28X 1739, owned by respondent No.1, insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from behind. As a result, the deceased and the rider fell down from the motorcycle and the van ran over them and both the deceased and rider of the motorcycle died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was 25 years, working as Supervisor at 2 Ashu Casting Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and was drawing salary of Rs.5,100/- per month. Therefore, they laid the claim against the respondents for Rs.6.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads.
Before the tribunal, while the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte, the respondent No. 2, insurance company, resisted the claim by filing counter and denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income. It is also contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim- petition.
Considering the claim, counter and the evidence, both oral and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. awarding a compensation of Rs.6,11,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to be paid by both the respondents jointly and severally. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimants filed the present appeal.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the claimants have asserted by producing Ex.A.7, salary certificate, that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.5,100/- working as Supervisor at Ashu Casting Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, the tribunal has considered the avocation of the deceased as labourer and fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,500/- 3 which is meagre and in the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the insurance company, the tribunal ought to have taken into consideration Ex.A.7 and ought to have fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,100/-. The other contention of the learned counsel is that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the tribunal ought to have added future prospects at 40% to the established income of the deceased. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the deceased may be taken into consideration reasonably for assessing loss of dependency by adding future prospects and prayed to enhance the compensation.
Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and has rightly awarded the compensation which needs no interference by this Court.
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. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 4 The short question that arises for consideration is "whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable"?
The Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award "just compensation", irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimants. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, although the claimants have claimed that the deceased was working as a Supervisor in a private company and although they have produced Ex.A.7, salary certificate, to prove that the deceased was drawing Rs.5,100/- per month as salary, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income deceased at Rs.4,500/- on the ground that no satisfying documentary evidence was placed on record by the claimants. Of course, the claimants have not examined the author of Ex.A.7, salary certificate. But the fact remains that the deceased passed S.S.C., as seen from Ex.A.6 and therefore, basing on his qualification, the tribunal ought to have accepted the income of the deceased as reflected in Ex.A.7. Therefore, basing on Ex.A.7, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,100/-.
Coming to the aspect of future prospects, this point has already been considered by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra), and it has been held that the benefit of future prospects 5 cannot be denied to a self-employed person. The Apex Court has further held that where the deceased was below the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% of the established income; where the deceased was between 40 to 50 years, an addition of 25% of the established income; and where the deceased was between 50 to 60 years, an addition of 10%, should be granted towards future prospects. According to the appellants, since the age of deceased, at the time of death, was 25 years, an addition of 40% of the established income should be granted. Thus, by adding 40% to the established income of the deceased, the future monthly income comes to Rs.7,140/- (Rs.5,100/- plus Rs.2,040/- being 40% thereof). Since the deceased was bachelor, after deducting 50% therefrom towards his personal expenses, the net monthly contribution to the family comes to Rs.3,570/-, and the annual contribution comes to Rs.42,840/-.
After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has held that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the suitable multiplier would be '18'. Applying multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.7,71,120/- (Rs.42,840/- x 18). However, 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 the conventional heads, as per the decision of the Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/-but not Rs.1,25,000/- as was awarded by the tribunal. Apart from that, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3, the claimants, being the parents of the deceased, are granted filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, in all, the claimants are granted the compensation of Rs.8,84,120/-.
In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,11,000/- to Rs.8,84,120/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from today till the date of realization. Time to deposit the amount is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion as was ordered by the tribunal. However, the claimants are 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 31.10.2022 tsr 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No. 750 of 2019 DATE: 31-10-2022