THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.721 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 05.02.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1144 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"),the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one G.Ramesh, husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant No. 2, son of claimant No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.06.2010. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle from Rallaguda to Shamshabad, at about 12:30 p.m., one Tata Mobile bearing No. AP 29 T 7956, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed, came from opposite direction and dashed the bicycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and 2 MGP, J Macma_721_2017 died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 24 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as mason. Therefore, they filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 claiming compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads.
4. Before the tribunal, while respondent No. 1 remained ex parte, the respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Considering the claim of the appellants, counter filed by the respondent No. 2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of the realization, to be deposited by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the claimants have filed this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused the material available on record.
3
MGP, J Macma_721_2017
7. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that there is a chance of increase of monthly earning of the deceased as he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as mason and that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is meagre and needs to be enhanced.
8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 herein has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
9. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW.2, eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record i.e., Exs.A.1, FIR and A.2, Charge Sheet, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Mobile bearing No. AP 29T 7956. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the claimants, the deceased was aged 24 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as conductor. But no evidence is 4 MGP, J Macma_721_2017 produced by the claimants in order to prove the income of the deceased. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar1, the Apex Court has held that even there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated. Considering the same, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, the Tribunal has erroneously added future prospects at 50% without considering the fact that the employment of the deceased is not permanent in nature. Therefore, in light of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, 40% is added towards future prospects, which works out to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500 + 1,800). After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses as there are three dependents, the net income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,200/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased as 24 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3 is "18". Thus, the future loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.4,200/- x 12 x 18). As per Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads. Further, the claimant No. 2 being the minor daughter of the deceased, is entitled to 1 (2001) 8 SCC 197 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 MGP, J Macma_721_2017 Rs.40,000/- under the head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others4. Thus, the total amount of compensation works out to Rs.10,24,200/-.
11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is impermissible under law.
12. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another5, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh6 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 (2011) 10 SCC 756 6 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 6 MGP, J Macma_721_2017 claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration, the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.10,24,200/-. 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 respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. 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 their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 20.04.2023 gms 7 MGP, J Macma_721_2017 18 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.721 of 2017 DATE: 20.04.2023 gms