THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.534 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 17.01.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1785 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 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 under Section 166 of M.V.Act., claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one Saggam Mahender, husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant Nos. 2 to 4, son of claimant No. 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.05.2010. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding in his Maruti Van bearing No. AP 13 N 6891, from Ramdevguda to Lungerhouse and at about 09:30 p.m., one auto bearing No. 2 MGP, J Macma_534_2017 AP 28 X 9051, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver, came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the car of the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Care Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein he succumbed to the injuries on 16.05.2010 while undergoing treatment. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 42 years and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by doing business of selling stainless home needs. The deceased used to contribute his earnings for the welfare of his family, but due to the sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the claimants lost their bread winner, love and affection besides losing future earnings and dependency on the deceased. Therefore, they filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 claiming compensation of Rs.30.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads.
4. Before the tribunal, while respondent No. 1 remained ex parte, the respondent No. 2 filed counter filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated 3 MGP, J Macma_534_2017 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. in part, awarding a total compensation of Rs.15,85,725/- 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.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal erroneously concluded that the Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects to the established income of the deceased and that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is meagre and needs to be enhanced. It is lastly contended that since the deceased was 43 years old, the 4 MGP, J Macma_534_2017 Tribunal should have applied the multiplier '14' instead of '11'.
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, who is eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record i.e., Ex.A.1, First Information Report, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No. AP 28 X 9051. 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. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the claimants, the deceased was aged 43 years and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by doing business of 5 MGP, J Macma_534_2017 selling stainless steel home needs. In support of their claim, they filed Exs.A.3 & A.4, copies of the income tax returns of the deceased, which discloses that the deceased was getting income of Rs.1,81,300/- for the year 2008-09. Considering the avocation of the deceased and evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,81,300/-. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal has not added future prospects to the established income of the deceased. Since the deceased was 43 years old at the time of the death, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, 25% towards future prospects can duly be added to the established income of the deceased. Thus, the future annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,26,625/- (Rs.1,81,300/- + Rs.45,325/-). Since the dependents are five in number, after deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.1,69,969/- and as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1 2017 ACJ 2700 6 MGP, J Macma_534_2017 and another2, the appropriate multiplier is '14' as the deceased was 43 years old at the time of the accident. Thus, applying the multiplier '14', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.23,79,566/-. In addition to that, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Further, the claimant Nos.2 to 4, being the minor children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each 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 others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,76,566/-.
11. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.15,85,725/- to Rs.23,76,566/-. 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 major 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 MGP, J Macma_534_2017 claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 21.04.2023 gms/tu 8 MGP, J Macma_534_2017 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.534 of 2017 DATE: 21.04.2023 gms/tu