HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.10 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 24.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.703 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one Gopa Laxman (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.07.2015. It is stated that on the fateful day, between 12.30 to 14.45 hours, while the deceased was proceeding towards his fields situated at Tanoor side on his motorcycle bearing No.AP01R2111, on the way, one Tata Indigo 2 MGP, J Macma_10_2019 Car bearing No.MH 34 AM 4173, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous and crush injuries all over his body and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhainsa in 108 Ambulance and from there, he was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad, and from there while he was being shifted to Hyderabad, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day at 14.45 hours. According to claimants, the deceased 60 years old and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agriculture and therefore, they are claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
4. Respondent No.1 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred and the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the accident occurred due 3 MGP, J Macma_10_2019 to the collusion of both the motorcycle and car and further the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. In view of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Indigo car bearing No.MH 34 AM 4173 by its driver causing death of Gopa Laxman?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3) To what relief?
7. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 got marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of respondents, no witnesses were examined. However, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
8. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,86,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date 4 MGP, J Macma_10_2019 of petition till the date of deposit or realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record.
10. Learned counsel for the claimant has contended that though the claim was for Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal has granted a meagre amount without considering the fact that the claimant used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agriculture. In the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the insurance company, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the total compensation as claimed by the claimants.
11. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of second respondent-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that 5 MGP, J Macma_10_2019 considering the manner of accident and the age, avocation and income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
12. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence, Ex.A1, F.I.R. and Ex.A2, charge sheet, the Tribunal has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of car.
13. With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was doing agriculture and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, since the petitioners did not produce any oral or documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, the tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is very less. Therefore, considering 6 MGP, J Macma_10_2019 the age and avocation of the deceased and the accident occurred in the year 2015, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 10% of his income, since the deceased was aged 60 years. Then it comes to Rs.4,950/- (4,500 + 450 = 4,950/-). From this, 1/4th of the actual income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependants are four in number. After deducting 1/4th of the amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.3,713/- (4,950 - 1,237 = 3,713/-) per month. Since the deceased was 60 years by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '9' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '9', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.3713/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.4,01,004/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 MGP, J Macma_10_2019 entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,78,004/-.
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,86,000/- to Rs.4,78,004/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. 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 claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 06.01.2023 pgp/pvt