THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MA.CMA.NO.1353 OF 2015
JUDGMENT
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XXI Additional Chief Judge - cum - VII Additional Metropolitan Sesisions Judge, Hyderabad, in O.P.NO.1651 of 2008 dated17.12.2012, the claimants have the present appeal.
2. The deceased is one B.Narasimha alias, Narsanna. The claimants are wife, daughter, son and mother of the deceased.
3. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, and was with the deceased at the time of accident and also considering the evidence of P.W.2 who is the eye witness to the accident, and considering Exs.A-1 to A-5, which are the certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, inquest report, postmortem examination report and MVI report, and as no rebuttal evidence was lead by the insurance company, held that on 6.6.2008, at about 20.00 hours while the deceased was going along with his wife, and that on reaching APR Garden, Karmanghat, Saroornagar, the driver of the offending vehicle DCM Van bearing No. AP 28T 7116 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, and the deceased died in the said accident.
4. There is no dispute that the policy of the crime vehicle, which was marked as Ex.B-1, was in force as on the date of the accident.
5. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the insurer and the insured.
6. The deceased was aged 32 years. As no documentary evidence was filed with regard to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal taking the income of the deceased as 2 Rs.2,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 17, and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, awarded Rs.2,72,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- to the 1st claimant towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, and thus in all awarded an amount of Rs.3,07,000/- with interest at the ate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. As stated above, not being satisfied with the quantum, the claimants filed the present appeal.
7. Heard Sri B.S.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the claimants, and Sri Muddu Vijay, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company, and perused the material available on record.
8. In the present case, the deceased is found to be aged 32 years and no income proof has been filed by the claimants. The Apex Court in the decision reported in RAMACHANDRAPPA v. THE MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED1 has taken the monthly income of a daily wager at Rs.4,500/-. As there is no tangible evidence on record with regard to income of the deceased in the present case, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. The annual income of the deceased was taken by the Tribunal at Rs.24,000/-, in my considered view, is very less, and requires to be modified accordingly.
9. The deceased at the time accident was aged 32 years, as per Ex.A-4 post mortem certificate. As per the judgment of Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs. PRANAY SETHI2, an addition of 40% of the established income shall be made towards future prospect. 40% of Rs.4,500/- would come to Rs.1,800/-. Thus the total monthly amount, including future prospects, would come to Rs.6,300/-.
1 AIR 2011 SC 2951 2 AIR 2017 SC 5157 3
10. The Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION3, held that where the number of dependent family members of the deceased are 4 to 6, the deduction towards personal and living expenses, shall be 1/4th. In the present case, the claimants, who are the dependants of the deceased, are four in number. Therefore, the deductions towards personal expenses from out of the income of the deceased, shall be 1/4th. . The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd, and the same is modified. Accordingly, if 1/4th is deducted from Rs.6,300/-, which is the monthly income arrived at by this court, the amount that the deceased would be contributing to his family will come to Rs.4,725/- (Rs.6,300/- - Rs.1,575/-) per month and Rs.56,700/- per annum.
11. For the age group of deceased, who is 32, the appropriate multiplier as per column No.4 of the table given in the judgment of the Apex Court in SarlaVerma (supra), is '16'. By applying the said multiplier, the claimants are granted an amount of Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.56,700/- x 16) towards loss of dependency.
12. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in PranaySethi's case (supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- towards conventional heads.
13. Claimants 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased at the time of the accident. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM4, each of them are entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium i.e., under this head, claimants 2 and 3, are entitled to Rs.80,000/-
14. Thus, in all the claimants are granted the following amounts:
1. Loss of dependency -- Rs.9,07,200 - 00
2. Conventional head -- Rs. 77,000 - 00
3
(2009)6 SCC 121
4
(2018)18 SCC 130
4
(i) Loss of estate; (Rs.16,500-00)
(ii) Loss of consortium to 1st claimant (Rs.44,000-00)
(iii) Funeral expenses (Rs.16,500-00)
3. Loss of parental consortium to claimants 2 and 3 -- Rs. 80,000 - 00
(Rs.40,000/- each)
---------------------------
Total compensation: Rs.10, 64,200-00
----------------------------
15. Thus the compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,07,000/- to Rs.10,64,200/- (rupees ten lakhs, sixty four thousand, two hundred only) and only the enhanced amount shall interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.
16. The apportionment of compensation, deposit in the nationalized banks by way of fixed deposits, withdrawal, shall be in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal and the directions of the Tribunal in this regard are confirmed.
17. It is to be noticed that in the present case the claimants claimed only an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, but this court, based on the judgments of the Apex Court, found that they are entitled to Rs.10,64,200/-, which is just and fair compensation. Thus the amount granted to the claimants exceeded their claim. The Apex Court in NAGAPPA vs. GURU DAYAL SINGH5 held that the Tribunal is under a duty to grant just and fair compensation which could, in a given case be even more than what is actually claimed in an application filed under Section 166 of the Act. This principle of law has been reiterated in several subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, and also in SRI LAXMAN @ LAXMAN vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORITL. INS. CO. 5 (2003)2 SCC 274 5 LTD6 and RAJESH v. RAJBIR SINGH7. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court, this court is inclined to grant the just compensation arrived at, though the same exceeded the claim of the appellants/claimants.
18. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
19. The claimants shall pay the differential court fee for the enhanced amount granted by this court. It is needless to observe that payments, if any, made by the insurer, shall be given credit to.
20. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
------------------------------------------
M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J DATE:05--09--2022 AVS 6 (2011)0 Supreme (SC) 1054 7 (2013)9 SCC 54