HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.564 of 2017
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.361 of 2013 dated 26.02.2016, 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 08-07-2012 the deceased Varun Dugar and his friends have started from Basheerbagh in a car bearing No. AP 09 BX 5292 and when they reached near Ohris Hotel, Basheerbagh at about 1-15 A.M., the driver of the said car drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed three pedestrians, one Mahindra car and also one Nano car. As a result of which, the inmates of the said car including the deceased Varun Dugar sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body and immediately while shifting to the hospital, the deceased succumbed to injuries. 2 According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 22 years, and was a Director of his business firm and used to earn more than Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. Thus, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- under various heads against the respondents 1 and 2, who are owner and insurer jointly and severally.
4. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the petition averments. It is submitted that the car involved in the accident was insured with the respondent No.2 covering the date of accident and the driver of the car was having valid driving license as on the date of accident.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred and the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the car along with his friends had Hukka and consumed liquor on the date of accident and at mid night while returning home, the driver was under the influence of Hukka and liquor, lost his control over the said car and caused the said accident and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.
3
6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.24,79,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, along with proportionate costs and interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants established the fact that the death of the deceased-Varun Dugar was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal, after appreciating 4 the evidence on record, has rightly awarded adequate compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
10. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no dispute. However, after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 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 offending car which resulted the death of the deceased Varun Dugar.
11. With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 22 years, and was a Director of his business firm and used to earn more than Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. To prove the earnings of the deceased, the Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad was examined as PW-4 and he brought the certified copies of income tax returns verification forms relating to the deceased for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13. He admitted that Exs.X2 and X3 i.e., income tax returns for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were filed subsequent to the date of death of the deceased. As per Ex.X1, the income of the deceased was at Rs.2,07,856/- and income tax paid was shown as Rs.2,990/-. Therefore, the tribunal 5 rightly rejected Exs.X2 and X3 which were filed after the death of the deceased and by considering Ex.X1, has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,74,000/-, which appears to be less. Hence, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.2,04,866/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.2,05,000/- per annum. Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 40% of his income, since the deceased was aged 22 years. Then it comes to Rs.2,87,000/- (2,05,000 + 82,000 = 2,87,000/-). From this, 50% 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 50% of the amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.1,43,500/- per annum (2,87,000 - 1,43,500 = 1,43,500/-). Since the deceased was 22 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.1,43,500/- x 18 = Rs.25,83,000/-. In 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 addition thereto, the claimants are also 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 Ram3. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.26,96,000/-.
12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.24,79,000/- to Rs.26,96,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. Since it is reported that the petitioner No.5/appellant No.5 is died, the compensation awarded to him shall be distributed among the other petitioners 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 respondents, the 3 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 7 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