1 RRN, J
MACMA No.2974 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
MACMA No. 2974 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners.
2. Aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.10.03.2014 in M.V.O.P No.322 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, (District Judge), Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranga Reddy District (for short "the Tribunal"), the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal seeking to set aside the above order and decree.
3. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the original petition.
4. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.13,40,000/- under various heads as against the claim of petitioners for Rs.15,00,000/- with costs and interest @12% per annum from the date of petition till realization which is depicted hereunder.
2 RRN, J
MACMA No.2974 of 2014
Head Amount awarded by
Tribunal
Loss of dependency Rs.12,80,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.25,000/-
Loss of love, affection Rs.25,000/-
and estate
Funeral expenses Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.13,40,000/-
5. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company are that the Tribunal failed to see that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased also, as such, there was contributory negligence. He further contended that as per the charge sheet and other documents, the deceased was only a coolie even then the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased on the higher side at Rs.10,000/- per month based on inadequate documentary evidence. He further contended that the Tribunal awarded interest @12% p.a. on the higher side, as such, the compensation is highly excessive and prayed to set aside the Award.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents/petitioners contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-
3 RRN, J
MACMA No.2974 of 2014
per month considering the evidence of PW.3, employer of the deceased, and also Ex.A6/salary certificate and he also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the income of the victim therein based on the affidavit produced by the employer of the victim. He further contended that the Tribunal failed to grant future prospects on the income of the deceased and also prayed to modify the amounts granted under conventional heads as per law.
7. On weighing the arguments extended by both parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal failed to grant future prospects and just compensation under conventional heads. Hence, this Court is inclined to award the amounts as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as below:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1. Income Rs.10,000/- per month
2 Future Prospects Rs.4,000/- per month @ 40% on the
(as per Pranay Sethi reported original income 1 (2019) 7 SCC 217 4 RRN, J MACMA No.2974 of 2014 in 2017 (16) SCC 680) Total : Rs.10,000 + 4,000/- = Rs.14,000/-
3. Annual income Rs.1,68,000/-
(Rs.14,000x12)
4. Deductions towards personal Rs.1,12,000/-
expenses (Rs.1,68,800/- minus 1/3rd as the
dependants are three in number.
5. Loss of dependency Rs.17,92,000/-
(Rs.1,12,000/- x 16)
6. Multiplier
16
7. Loss of Spousal consortium -
(as per Pranay Sethi reported Rs.44,000/-
in 2017 (16) SCC 680) (Rs.40,000/- + 10% thereof)
(modified)
8. Loss of parental and minor
children consortium - Magma Rs.40,000/-
General Insurance Co.Ltd (substituted under the head love and
Vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru affection)
Ram - 2018 Law Suit (SC)
904
9. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% thereof)
(modified)
10. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% thereof )
(modified)
Total
Rs.19,09,000/-
8. Accordingly, the compensation amount deserves to be enhanced from Rs.13,40,000/- to Rs.19,09,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh and nine thousand only). However, the interest @ 12% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the same is liable to be reduced to 7.5% p.a. 5 RRN, J MACMA No.2974 of 2014
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company at the time of hearing contended that the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company and at worst, the same ought to be dismissed, but enhancement of compensation cannot be done in the absence of cross-objections or a separate appeal by the claimants. Both learned Counsel relied upon the same decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash Vs Divisional Manager2. A careful reading of the said judgment would finally reveal that an Appellate Court is enabled/empowered to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial Court even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross-objection and the Appellate Court is vested with the duty to do complete justice to the parties. As such, no irregularity would arise in the event the awarded compensation is enhanced.
10. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. However, the total compensation calculated and directed to be paid by the Insurance Company to the respondents is hereby increased to Rs.19,09,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh and nine thousand only) 2 Civil Appeal No.6110 of 2011 decided on 29.07.2011 6 RRN, J MACMA No.2974 of 2014 from Rs.13,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the respondents/claimants in the same proportion as directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. The appellant is directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The respondents/claimants are directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount within two months from the date of copy of the receipt of the judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 14th day of February, 2023 BDR