HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.30 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No.2233 of 2014 dated 27.10.2017, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants are the mother and sister of one J.Chetan Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). It is the case of the claimants that on 13.04.2014 at about 12-30 p.m., petitioner No.1 along with her husband and her son J.Chetan Srinivas was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No. AP 23 AG 8859 and when they reached near FRC of Vantimamidi village on Rajiv Rahadari, their motorcycle touched the divider and her husband and son also fell down on the other side to the divider, however, they got up and while walking towards motorcycle to start the same, meantime the driver of one Ritz 2 car bearing No. AP.15.BL.0089 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed both her husband and son. Due to the sudden impact, son of petitioner No.1 sustained fatal injuries on head and all over his body and died on the spot and her husband also died on the spot. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 9 years and was a student of primary school. The petitioners have incurred expenditure towards transportation, cremation and obsequies. Therefore, the claimants filed the aforesaid O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs under various heads against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the Ritz car respectively.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex parte.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of husband of petitioner No.1 and he himself dashed to divider and caused the accident. It is also contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.
3
6. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till payment to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
8. Learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that after considering all aspects the Tribunal granted adequate compensation and therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. With regard to the manner of accident, though it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of husband of petitioner No.1 and he himself dashed to divider, the tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documentary 4 evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Further there is no rebuttal evidence produced by the Insurance Company in support of their contention. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in this aspect.
10. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 9 years at the time of accident. In Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others1 the Apex Court having considered the grant of compensation in similar circumstances, has awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of a 10 year old boy. Recently, in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali and another v. Shyam Kishore Murmuand another,2 the Apex Court has awarded an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- by fixing the notional income of the deceased boy, who was aged about 10 years, at Rs.25,000/- and multiplied by '15'. Recently, in Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others3 the Apex Court having considered the grant of compensation in similar circumstances, has awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of a 12 year old boy. 1 (2014) 1 SCC 244 2 Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (SC) 3 2022 Law Suit (SC) 1218 5
11. In the instant case, the deceased was 9 years old boy. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto and others (2 supra) and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to take notional income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier '15', as per the decision of Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation4, it comes to Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x Multiplier 15) towards loss of dependency. The appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, the appellants are entitled for Rs.5,00,000/-.
12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.3,30,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. The claimants shall be permitted to withdraw 4 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 06.02.2023 pgp