THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2491 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and decree, dated 25.04.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.3101 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array 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.15,00,000/- for the death of one G.Sreenu, husband of claimant (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.11.2014. According to the claimant, on the fateful day, the deceased was proceeding towards Nayakangudem on motorcycle bearing No.AP 20 AS 8410 on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached near the Crusher Mill in the outskirts of Kusumanchi village, at about 05.00 p.m, the crime vehicle i.e., RTC Bus bearing No. TS 04 2 MGP, J Macma_2491_2017 Z 0157, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed on wrong side and dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down, sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital. According to the claimant, the deceased was aged 40 years, working as Centring mastery and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, they filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 claiming compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads.
4. Before the tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2, filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Considering claim, counter filed and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.6,03,000/- with interest at 9% per annum payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed the present appeal.
3
MGP, J Macma_2491_2017
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the claimant has established that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month out of his employment which has been substantiated with the oral evidence of P.W.2, but the Tribunal has erroneously took the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and awarded meager amount.
9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2, Insurance company, has contended that except the oral evidence of P.W.2, no other evidence is adduced to establish the said employment and the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased Rs.4,000/- per month and awarded reasonable compensation which needs no interference by this Court.
10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged by either of the respondents.
11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, claimant in order to prove the income of deceased, no documentary evidence is produced. However, considering the avocation of the petitioner and the accident is of the year 2014, this Court is 4 MGP, J Macma_2491_2017 inclined to fix the income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month as he is a skilled person. Considering the fact that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was below 40 years, the claimant is entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1. Therefore, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-). From this, 1/2 is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 since there is only one dependent, After deducting 1/2 therefrom towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of income by the deceased to the family comes to Rs.4,200/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was 40 years as held by the Tribunal, the appropriate multiplier is '15' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Adopting multiplier '15', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,56,000/- (Rs.11,200/- x 12 x 15). That apart, the claimant is entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).
1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 MGP, J Macma_2491_2017
14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.6,03,000/- to Rs.8,33,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time to deposit the entire compensation is one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 31.01.2023 gms 6 MGP, J Macma_2491_2017 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.2491 of 2017 DATE: 31-01-2023 gms