THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2602 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the award and decree, dated 24.02.2014 made in M.V.O.P.No.893 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their array before the tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one P.Sheshulu (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.12.2011. According to the claimants on the fateful day the deceased was crossing the road at Uppal Nalla Cheruvukatta duly 2 MGP, J Macma_2602_2014 observing the traffic, at that time one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 7109, owned by the respondents, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and he succumbed to injuries on 11.12.2011 while undergoing treatment. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working in M/s. P.V.Electro Planting Works, Fatenagar. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their source of income, love and affection and therefore, they filed the claim-petition seeking compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards compensation under various heads.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondents contested the claim denying the averments of the claim petition, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased 3 MGP, J Macma_2602_2014 and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. After considering the claim, counter filed by the respondents and the evidence, both oral and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5% thereon to be paid by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the claimants that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are also entitled to the future prospects and also Rs.33,000/- under 1 2017 ACJ 2700 4 MGP, J Macma_2602_2014 conventional heads. It is further contended that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court the claimant No.1, being the mother of the deceased is also entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards filial consortium.
8. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the issue with regard to the future prospects has been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (supra) and as per that judgment, the claimants are entitled 40% amount towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the compensation towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced.
9. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver in causing the accident that resulted in the death of the deceased. It is to be noted that although the O.P. was filed under Section 163-A of the 5 MGP, J Macma_2602_2014 M.V. Act, in view of its findings arrived on issue No. 1 to the effect that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver, the Tribunal proceeded with the O.P. as has been filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
10. As regards the quantum of compensation, though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was a worker in sales representative and was earning Rs.9,000/- per M/s. P.V.Electro Painting Works, Fatenagar, the Tribunal has fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. However, considering the prevailing rate of minimum wages at the relevant point of time, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Apart from the same, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,000/-). Duly deducting 50% 6 MGP, J Macma_2602_2014 there from towards personal expenses of the deceased as he is unmarried, the net monthly contribution of the deceased to the family comes to Rs.3,500/-. As the age of the deceased was 47 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2. Adopting multiplier '13', his total loss of earnings would be Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.5,46,000/-. That apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, considering the fact that the claimant No.1, who is the mother of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of filial consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 7 MGP, J Macma_2602_2014 others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to only Rs.6,29,000/-.
12. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another4 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh5, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 (2011) 10 SCC 756 5 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 8 MGP, J Macma_2602_2014 endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.3,27,000/- to Rs.6,29,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount will carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal. Time to deposit the compensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
9
MGP, J Macma_2602_2014 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 25.01.2023 Tsr