HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1337 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy in O.P. No.86 of 2012 dated 27.11.2014, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioners, on 31.3.2010 the deceased and her husband Gaddam Rajareddy along with their family members were proceeding in a car bearing No. AP 25 K 1772 driven by her husband from Nizamabad towards Kamareddy and when they reached the limits of Chandrayanpalli village, the driver/operator of Standard HNC Crane bearing No. AP 28 BG 9552 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over it and dashed their car. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the 2 deceased was aged 54 years and she was supervising their agriculture and earning Rs.1.5 lakhs per annum from agriculture. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under various heads against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the crane was 20 yards away from the car and it was busy in digging earth and removing the stones for formation of the road and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and that the claim is excessive.
5. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,28,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and the respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners at 3 the first instance and then recover the same from the respondent No.1 by filing an execution petition without filing any separate suit.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent- Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants established the fact that the death of the deceased-Gaddam Suryakala was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the car and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and the Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company and the amount awarded is exorbitant.
4
9. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that as per the scene of offence panchanama, the crane was at a distance of 20 feet from the road and there was some distance between car and crane and as such, there is no damage to the car, the tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, RW-2 who is Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, has rightly held that the probability of change of the position of the vehicles after the incident cannot be ruled out at any point of time and from seeing the position of the vehicles, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the driver/operator of the crane and the crane was not involved in the accident. Further the police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the Crane Operator/driver and there is no rebuttal evidence placed by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company to show that there was no negligence on the part of the Crane Operator/driver. Therefore, the tribunal rightly held the accident took place due to the rash and negligent operating of the HNC Crane bearing No. AP 28 BG 9552 by its operator/driver. Hence, 5 there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the tribunal on this aspect.
10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 54 years and she was supervising their agriculture work and earning Rs.1.5 lakhs per annum from agriculture. Ex.A12 are certified copies of pahanies. As the petitioners have not placed any record to show the income of the deceased, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, which appears to be meager. Hence, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. As seen from the postmortem examination report and inquest report, the deceased was aged 56 years old. Further the claimants are entitled to addition of 10% towards future prospects to the actual income, as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1. Therefore, future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,600/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.600/- being 10% thereof). From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 6 Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are two in number. After deducting 1/3rd amount towards her personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.4,400/- per month (6,600 - 2,200 = 4,400/-). Since the deceased was 56 years by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '9' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '9', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.4,400/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.4,75,200/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,52,200/-.
11. With regard to the liability, the offending vehicle is HNC Crane bearing No. AP 28 BG 9552. Ex.B4 shows that the Operator of the said vehicle was having Motor Transport License of transport class and also light motor vehicle of non- transport class and both types of licenses were valid as on the date of the incident. Since the offending vehicle is HNC Crane, a special category of license is to be required for it's operating, which was not possessed by its operator/driver at 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 the time of accident. Therefore, the tribunal rightly directed the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioners at the first instance and then recover the same from the respondent No.1 by filing an execution petition without filing any separate suit.
12 In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,28,000/- to Rs.5,52,200/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The claimants are not entitled for interest during the delay period. Respondent No.2 shall pay the compensation to the petitioners at the first instance and then recover the same from the respondent No.1 by filing an execution petition without filing any separate suit. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner 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. 8
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ SMT.M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 06.04.2023 pgp