Telangana High Court
Namu Nagaiah And 2 Ors vs V.Bhaskar Rao And Anr on 12 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.926 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2007 in O.P.No.2053 of 2001 passed by the learned I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad (for short 'The Tribunal'), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.50% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed respondents to deposit the said amount.
3. The appellants/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V Rules, 1989 for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) for the death of one Namu Srinivas in a Motor Vehicle accident.
2
SKS,J MACMA.No.926_2008
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the tractor bearing No.AP-25E- 5945 and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company Limited.
5. Heard Sri Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
6. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellants thaton 15.06.2001 the deceased was travelling on the tractor bearing No.AP-25E-5945 when it reached the limits of Boppapur (V) near Tank Bund at a distance of 6 km, towards North from P.S. Varni, at about 03:00 P.M., the driver of tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost his control over it, due to which, the tractor turned turtle, the deceased fell on the ground and the tractor ran over the deceased, due to which, he received multiple injuries all over the body and died on the spot.
7. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the same vehicle is insured with respondent No.2, as such, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,25,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants filed the present appeal. 3
SKS,J MACMA.No.926_2008
8. There is no dispute with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not sufficient. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the claim or not.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal without considering the age of the deceased has wrongly taken the multiplier as 17. The age of the deceased was about 23 years and the income of the deceased was not considered by the Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- and not awarded the conventional heads. Therefore, prayed the Court to enhance the compensation.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that there is no need to enhance the compensation as the Tribunal awarded sufficient amount.
11. Having regard to the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there is no dispute with regard to the liability and negligence, so there is no need to discuss about the same. According to the appellants deceased used to earn 4 SKS,J MACMA.No.926_2008 Rs.12,000/- and Ex.A6 document is filed to prove the same. Therefore, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month by the Tribunal. Further, as per inquest report, the deceased is working as cleaner of the tractor which was contrary to the averments mentioned in the Ex.A6. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance 1 , the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2 held that while considering the compensation in cases of death, the future prospects of the self employed shall also be considered. Having regard to the age and occupation as self-employed, if 40 percent of the income is included as future prospects, the monthly income would come to Rs.6,300/- (4,500 + 1,800). As the dependants are three members, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenditure, as per law laid down in Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 3. Thus, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be of Rs.50,400/- (6,300 - 2,100 x 12). As per his age 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 2 2017 (6) 170 (SC) 3 (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 5 SKS,J MACMA.No.926_2008 i.e., 23 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be '18', the total amount comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (50,400 x 18).
12. As there are three claimants, they are entitled to Rs.44,000/- each towards loss of consortium, which would come to Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.44,000 x3). Further the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of estate.
13. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the claimants are entitled to the following amounts:
Heads Compensation awarded
Loss of dependency Rs.9,07,200/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 1,32,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.10,69,200/-
14. 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 6 SKS,J MACMA.No.926_2008 awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
15. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another 4 , the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 5 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 (2003) 2 SCC 274, 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."
16. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been 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. 4 (2011) 10 SCC 756 5 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 7 SKS,J MACMA.No.926_2008
17. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.4,25,000/- to Rs.10,69,200/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents jointly and severally after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one (1) month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment and thereafter, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J DATE: 12.12.2023 SAI 8 SKS,J MACMA.No.926_2008 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA M.A.C.M.A.No.926 of 2008 Date: 12.12.2023 SAI