HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2696 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No.2178 of 2011 dated 14.05.2013, the claimants have filed the present appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioners who are wife and children of the deceased-Ch.Ramakrishna, on 14.08.2011 at about 6-00 a.m. the deceased Ch.Ramakrishna started from his house at Ramachandrapuram on his bicycle to his work place at Agarwal Rubber Factory to attend the work and when he reached near Srinivasa Nagar colony at the outskirts, one Tata Sumo bearing No. AP.23.V.5587 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from his back side and dashed him, due to which the deceased came under the vehicle and sustained grievous 2 injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Maithri Hospital and while undergoing treatment at about 9-00 a.m., he succumbed to the injuries. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 46 years, working in Agarwal Rubber Factory, Patancheru and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under various heads.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; 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 driver of the offending Tata Sumo was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and that the claim is highly excessive.
5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following issues:
1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 14.08.2011 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 23 V 5587 and whether the deceased Ch.Ramakrishna died due to the said accident?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what quantum and whether the crime vehicle was owned by first respondent and insured with second respondent and what is the liability of respondents?3
3) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Ex.X1. On behalf of respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.B1 was marked with consent.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of Rs.7,26,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants established the fact that the death of the deceased-Ch.Ramakrishna was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- 4 per month and did not consider the future prospects and awarded meager amount.
10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, has awarded adequate compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
11. With regard to the manner of accident, admittedly, there is no dispute. However, considering the evidence of PW-2 coupled with the documentary evidence on record, the tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Tata Sumo.
12. With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was working in Agarwal Rubber Factory and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month and the deceased joined in the said company through Dash Services (labour contractor). PW-3 who is working in Dash Services in Bandlaguda, Patanchervu and authorized by their company to give evidence, deposed that the deceased previously worked as Mechanic Operator in Dash Services from 2009 5 till his death and their company used to pay Rs.8,000/- per month towards his salary. Ex.A7 is the salary certificate of the deceased issued by Dash Services. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-3 and also considering the avocation of the deceased as a private employee, the tribunal rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, but did not consider the future prospects. Therefore, 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 55 years. Then it comes to Rs.8,800/- (8,000+800 = 8,800/-). From this, 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 since the deceased left as many as three persons as the dependants. After deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.5,867/- (8,800 - 2,933 = 5,867/- per month. Since the deceased was 55 years by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '11' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 multiplier '11', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.5,867/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.7,74,444/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,51,444/-.
13. With regard to the liability, as stated above, since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, the tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the owner and insurer of Tata Sumo are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by granting compensation amount of Rs.8,51,444/- to the petitioners with costs and interest at 7.5% 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 shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the initial claim was for Rs.8,00,000/-. On such payment of court fee only, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount. The amount of compensation shall be 7 apportioned among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 03.01.2023 pgp