THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.4209 of 2014 and 930 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice G. Sridevi)
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.4209 of 2014 filed by the Shriram
General Insurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A. No.930 of
2015 filed by the petitioners/claimants seeking enhancement of
the compensation, are directed against the very same judgment
and decree, dated 25.02.2014 passed in O.P.No.1018 of 2011 on
the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short "the
Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter
be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are
the wife, children and parents of one K.Narender Reddy
(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") filed a petition
against the respondents claiming compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a 2 GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015 motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 28.09.2011 after completion of office work the deceased was started on his Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 29 AG 0614 in order to go to his house and when he reached near Uppal Bus Depot, Peerjadiguda, one Lorry bearing No.AP 29 U 8122 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and he succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital. It is also stated that prior to his death, the deceased was working as Head Constable in Security Wing of Railway Protection Force and used to earn Rs.28,000/- per month. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 29 U 8122, the petitioners filed the aforesaid O.P against the respondents. The 1st and 2nd respondents are the owners, the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the said Lorry, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
3
GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st and 2nd respondent remained ex parte.
5. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim-petition including the manner in which the accident occurred, age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is specifically contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased only. It is also contended that the amount claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.
6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle-Lorry and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.34,36,260/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, 4 GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015 the present appeals came to be filed by the 3rd respondent- Insurance company and the petitioners respectively.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the petitioners are also entitled to the future prospects and also Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads.
9. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent- insurance company would submit that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the Tribunal did not consider the same. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is submitted that the issue with regard to the future prospects has been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (supra) and as per that judgment, the petitioners are 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015 entitled 30% amount towards future prospects. As regards the conventional heads, it is submitted that the Tribunal has awarded abnormal amounts of Rs.2,25,000/- and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) it should be reduced to Rs.77,000/-.
10. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry or whether there was any negligence on the part of the deceased, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A1-F.I.R. and Ex.A2-charge sheet, has categorically observed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. No contra evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. 6
GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015
11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as per Ex.A10-Last Pay Certificate, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.34,205/-. After deducting all the deductions, the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.27,447/- per month. Apart from the same, as the deceased was working as Head Constable-Government Employee and aged about 49 years the petitioners are entitled to addition of 30% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 35,681/- (Rs.27,447/- + Rs.8,234/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are five in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.26,760/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 49 years, in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) the suitable multiplier would 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015 be '13'. Applying multiplier '13' the total loss of dependency would be Rs.26,760/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.41,74,560/-. As regards the conventional heads is concerned, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to only Rs.77,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, therefore, the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection to the children and mother, loss of estate and funeral expenses is hereby reduced to Rs.77,000/- only. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled to Rs.42,51,560/-.
12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.4209 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.930 of 2015 filed by the petitioners is allowed in part. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.34,36,260/- to Rs.42,51,560/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of judgment passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall 8 GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015 be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. The respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their share amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________ G. SRI DEVI, J _______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 14.09.2022 Tsr/gkv