HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1067 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.1783 of 2012 dated 20.11.2017, the claimants have filed the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioners, on 19.05.2012 at about 7-45 a.m. the deceased Ch.Raja Venkata Gopala Krishna Rao @ Raj Gopal Krishna was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 28 BG 7882 from Pune towards Shirdi along with his friend Rakesh Singh and when they reached near Ale village on Pune-Nasik national highway road, at that time one Eicher medium goods vehicle bearing No. DD 03 G 9236 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which he died on the spot and the pillion rider of the said motorcycle sustained 2 grievous injuries. After dashing the motorcycle of the deceased, the said crime vehicle also dashed one lorry bearing No. MH 15 BJ 4290. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 24 years, working as Technical Associate Grade TTGI in Tech Mahindra IT Services and Telecom Solutions at Pune, Maharashtra and was earning Rs.22,873/- per month. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- 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 alleging that the accident occurred due to head on collision and there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle does not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident and that the compensation claimed is excessive.
5. Considering the claim and counter filed by the respondent No.2 and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part and awarded compensation of Rs.34,11,667/- with proportionate costs and interest at 8% per annum, 3 from the date of petition till the date of decree together with future interest 6% per annum till the payment with a direction to the respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount and later they can recover it from respondent No.1 by filing execution.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and 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-Ch.Raja Venkata Gopala Krishna Rao @ Raj Gopal Krishna was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal did not consider the future prospects and awarded meager amount.
8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3rd of the earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead of 50% of his earnings, since he is a bachelor and awarded higher compensation and therefore, prays to set aside the order and decree passed by the tribunal.
4
9. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no dispute. However, after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher vehicle bearing No. DD 03 G 9236 which resulted the death of the deceased Ch.Raja Venkata Gopala Krishna Rao @ Raj Gopal Krishna.
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 24 years, studied B.Tech (Electronics and Communication Engineering), working as Technical Associate Grade TTGI in Tech Mahindra IT Services and Telecom Solutions at Pune, Maharashtra and was earning Rs.22,873/- per month. Ex.A13 is the consolidated marks memo of B.Tech., of the deceased issued by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. PW-3 is the HR Manager in Tech Mahindra and Exs.A17 to A18 are pay slips for the months of February 2011, March 2011 and April 2012. Ex.A16 appointment letter shows that the deceased total income was Rs.2,90,000/-. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-3 coupled with Ex.A16, the tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.2,90,000/- per annum but did not consider the future prospects. 5 Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 40% of his income, since the deceased was aged 24 years. Then it comes to Rs.4,06,000/- (2,90,000 + 1,16,000 = 4,06,000/-). In the year 2012, there is no income tax up to Rs.1,80,000/- and 10% is to be deducted towards income tax if the income exceeds Rs.1,80,000/- up to Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, an amount of Rs.22,600/- is deducted towards income tax. Then the loss of dependency of the deceased to his family comes to Rs.3,83,400/-. From this, half of the actual income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the deceased was a bachelor. After deducting half of the amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.1,91,700/- per annum. Since the deceased was 24 years by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.1,91,700/- x 18 = Rs.34,50,600/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Further the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are also entitled to filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per the Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram 3. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.35,63,600/-.
11. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Eicher vehicle. However, as per the evidence RW-2, Junior Clerk in RTA, Jalgaon coupled with Ex.B3 driving license extract, the driver of the offending vehicle is permitted to drive light motor vehicle of transport, but the vehicle involved in this case is Eicher vehicle, which is a medium goods vehicle. Thus, it is clearly established that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident. Therefore, the tribunal rightly directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount and later they can recover it from respondent No.1 by filing execution. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the tribunal in this aspect.
3 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 7
12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.34,11,667/- to Rs.35,63,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount at first and later they can recover it from the respondent No.1 by filing execution petition. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio 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 of compensation amount by the respondent No.2, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 13.04.2023 pgp