HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3850 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No.1341 of 2011 dated 23.07.2013, 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 children and mother of the deceased-Bandaru Ravinder, on 25.01.2011 between 4-00 to 5-00 p.m., the deceased was crossing the road at National Highway No.9 Petrol pump to go to Sulabh Complex, near KPHB Police Station, Hyderabad, at that time one motorcycle bearing No. AP 28 C 6178 being driven by its rider came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and received grievous injuries apart from head injury and immediately he was shifted to Remedy Hospital and the doctors of the said hospital advised to shift him to a Corporate hospital and while the attendants were 2 thinking of shifting to Apollo Hospital after pooling funds, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 31.01.2011 while receiving the follow up treatment at Remedy Hospital. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 40 years and employed in Om Trishul Else Net Work and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month besides Rs.2,000/- towards other allowances etc. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- 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 motorcycle 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 had occurred resulting in the death of the deceased, Bandaru Ravinder due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle (Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 28 C 6178) by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the 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-8. 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.6,95,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment or realization 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-Bandaru Ravinder was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- 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 motorcycle.
12. With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was employed in Om Trishul Satellite Net Work and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month besides Rs.2,000/- towards other allowances etc. PW-3 who was said to be the Proprietor of Om Trishul Satellite Cable TV deposed that he was running the cable TV since 12 years and that the deceased worked under him as a Technician for four years till his death and he issued Ex.A8 salary 5 certificate. Though PW-1 has admitted that his father used to work as Gas Stove Repairer and Ex.A7 house hold card shows that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.24,000/- on the date of its issuance that is much prior to the accident. In the absence of any documentary proof, the tribunal had taken the income of the deceased after considering the future prospectus at Rs.5,000/-, which is very less. Therefore, considering the age and avocation of the deceased coupled with the evidence of PW-3, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.6,000/- 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 @ 25% of his income, since the deceased was aged 44 years. Then it comes to Rs.7,500/- (6,000+1,500 = 7,500/-). 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.5,000/- (7,500 - 2,500 = 5,000/- per month. Since the deceased was 44 years by the time of the 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 accident, the appropriate multiplier is '14' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '14', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.8,40,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Further petitioner No.2 who is minor daughter of the deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- as parental consortium, as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,57,000/-.
13. With regard to the liability, as stated above, since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle 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.9,57,000/- to the petitioners with costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 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.9,00,000/-. On such payment of court fee only, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount. The amount of compensation shall be 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