1 RRN,J
MACMA No.3441 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 29.03.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.406 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of the death of Pilly Manaiah (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") in the accident. On 14.10.2011 in the evening, the deceased and his co-workers were taking rest after attending their labour work in M/s. Sneha Feeds (P) Ltd., Medchal Mandal, Rangareddy District and on 15.10.2011 at about 5.30 hours, 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014 the driver of Eicher bearing No.AP28-TA-8164 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner over the deceased and others and consequently the deceased received serious injuries and multiple fractures on vital parts of the body. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Medicity Hosptial for treatment and thereafter referred to Gandhi Hospital, where the duty doctor declared that the deceased was brought dead.
4. The respondents filed their counters affidavits denying all the allegations raised by the petitioners and stated that the driver of the vehicle is an experienced driver with a valid license and driving the vehicle by taking all precautions and safety measures. The accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased. The petitioners have also not filed any proof to show the age, earnings and legal heirs of the deceased. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
5. To prove their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Ex.A1 to A6. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B1/copy of the policy is filed.
3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.6,65,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. to the petitioners. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in granting meagre compensation by not considering the salary of the deceased @ Rs.9,000/- per month despite PW.3 i.e. employer of the deceased was examined who got marked Ex.A6/salary certificate and specifically deposed that the deceased was paid the above said amount. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects of the deceased and also prayed for granting compensation under conventional heads as per the well settled law. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.
4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the compensation amount by considering Rs.5,000/- per month towards the salary of the deceased. He further contended that the 3rd petitioner was a major at the time of filing of the O.P., as such, he cannot be considered to be the dependent of the deceased. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having considered the rival submissions of both parties, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in not considering Ex.A6/salary certificate issued by PW.3 and his evidence. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad V. K. Swaroopa Rani1 wherein this Court even in the absence of oral evidence of the employer, where the salary certificate was marked, the Court considered the same and rightly awarded the compensation. In this case, the petitioners examined the employer of the 1 2013(1) ALD 369 5 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014 deceased and also filed the salary certificate/Ex.A6 which can be relied upon without hesitation. As such, this Court is inclined to re-fix the salary of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month. This Court is further inclined to award future prospects on the income of the deceased and compensation under other heads. The petitioners were granted Rs.6,65,000/- and the same is interfered with in the following manner:
Head Amount arrived at by Amount arrived at by the Tribunal this Court Salary of deceased Rs.5,000/- p.m Rs.9,000/- p.m Annual income Rs.,60,000/- (Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.9,000 x 12) x 12) Future prospects Nil Rs.43,200/- (40% to be taken as the deceased was under the 40 years, as per Pranay Sethi) Annual Income + Future Rs.60,000/- + Nil Rs.1,51,200/-
prospects ½ Deduction as the deceased Rs.30,000/- Rs.75,600/-
was a bachelor Age Multiplier 18 "18" (As per Sarla Verma) Loss of dependency Rs.5,40,000/- (30,000/- Rs.13,60,800/-
x 18) excluding future (Rs.75,600/- x 18)
prospects. including future
prospects
Loss of love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/- Nil
care
Loss of Estate Nil Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% as
per Pranay Sethi)
Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% as
per Pranay Sethi)
Loss of Filial Consortium Nil Rs.80,000/-
(As per Magma Insurance (Rs.40,000/- to
Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ petitioners No.2 and 3)
Chuhru Ram)
Total Rs.6,65,500/- Rs.14,73,800/-
6 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014
11. In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.14,73,800/-
towards compensation.
12. Though the claimed amount is Rs.9,00,000/-, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh2, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 6,65,000/- to Rs.14,73,800/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh, Seventy Three Thousand and Eight Hundred Only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by giving due credit to the amount already deposited if any. The compensation amount shall be apportioned by the petitioners in the ratio and manner as directed by the Tribunal. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation within a period of two 2 MANU/SC/0480/2013 7 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 1st day of March, 2023 BDR/PNS