THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1409 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (per Smt. Justice M.G.Piryadarsini)
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-United India
Insurance Company, questioning the order and decree, dated
28.12.2018 made in M.V.O.P.No.137 of 2014 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District
Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
against the respondents for the death of one Gouni
Satyanandam (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.12.2013. According to the claimants, on 08.12.2013, while the deceased, along with one Puli Swamy, was proceeding towards Narsapur on Hero Honda Pro Motorcycle bearing No.AP 23 AC 1438 and at about 4:30 p.m., when they reached near the outskirts of Chandapur village near bus stop, one Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 28 AA 1718 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from 2 opposite direction. As a result, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. On a complaint, the Police, Hathnoora, registered a case in Crime No.118 of 2013 under Sections 304-A and 307 of I.P.C. against the driver of the Tata Sumo. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was working with Gayatri Buio Organics Limited, Nandikandi and drawing a salary of Rs.18,000/- per month and due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their source of income, love and affection. Therefore, the claimants, being dependents of the deceased, laid a claim against the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the registered owners of the offending vehicle, respondent No.3 is the insurer and respondent No.4 is the driver of the offending vehicle.
4. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the Insurance Company, appellant herein, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part awarding compensation of Rs.30,89,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum to be paid by respondent Nos.1 to 4, jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
3
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that as per F.I.R., an unknown vehicle dashed the deceased and after a gap of 35 days of the occurrence, respondent No.4, driver of the TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 23 AC 1438, had surrendered before the Police and R.W.2, pillion rider, in his statement has stated that an unknown vehicle hit the deceased. Therefore, the offending vehicle is implicated in the accident in order to gain compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal has erroneously applied multiplier '17' instead of '16' as the deceased was aged about 30 years as per the service records of the employer. It is further contended that the Tribunal erroneously awarded excessive amount of Rs.3,38,000/- under the head of loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses instead it should be restricted to Rs.70,000/-. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel prayed to allow the appeal.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has submitted that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, as the age of the deceased was 30 years, the appropriate multiplier is '17' and the Tribunal has rightly applied the same and has rightly awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.
4
8. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal having framed issue No.1 as to whether the deceased namely Gouni Satyanandam died in the motor accident occurred on 08.12.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 28 AA 1718 by its driver, and having considered the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence such as Ex.A1, F.I.R. along with complaint, Ex.A3, scene of offence panchanama and Ex.A5, inquest panchanama, has categorically observed that the deceased died in the motor accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and has answered the issue in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Sumo.
9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.12, salary certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month. As the deceased was a fixed salaried person and as P.W.2 categorically deposed that the employment of the deceased was permanent, and as he was aged about below 40 years, the Tribunal has rightly added future prospects at 50%. As per the service records the date of birth of the deceased was 21.05.1983 and the accident took 5 place on 08.12.2013. From the above, it is clear that the deceased was aged about 29 years six months and seventeen days and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1, the appropriate multiplier is '17' and the Tribunal has rightly applied the same, as such, there is no force in the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has applied multiplier '17' instead of '16'. Hence, the amount of Rs.27,54,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is just and reasonable.
10. As regard the amount awarded under conventional heads is concerned, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/-. That apart, claimant Nos.2 and 3, who are 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 only Rs.29,11,000/-.
1 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6
11. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby reduced from Rs.30,89,000/- to Rs.29,51,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________________ DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J ______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI .02.2023 tsr 7 HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No.1409 of 2019 DATE: -02-2023