1 RRN,J
MACMA No.2514 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
MACMA NO. 2514 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
The present M.A.C.M.A is filed by the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the order and decree dt.15.12.2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No.1247 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short 'the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed by the petitioners for Rs.11,00,000/- on account of the death of one G. Laxma Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,51,000/- to the petitioners, and aggrieved by the quantum, the present appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record. Though the matter is posted for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondents; hence, their arguments are treated as Nil.
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.2514 of 2014
5. There is no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred, resulting in the deceased to succumb to the injuries, including the fact that the deceased contributed 50% negligence. The learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company had contended that the Tribunal failed to deduct the personal expenses of the deceased and prayed to reduce the compensation.
6. The Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- and this Court is inclined to re-fix the same at Rs.4,500/- in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.1. To this, 40% future prospects are added as the deceased was aged 39 years. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased is Rs.4,500/- + 40% = Rs.6,300/- and annually it comes to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,300/- x 12). As rightly claimed by the respondent no.2, deduction towards personal expenses is to be applied. As the dependants are 4 in number, 1/4th amount from the annual income is to be deducted and the same is to be multiplied with '15' as per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi2. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.75,600 x ¾ x 15 = Rs. 8,50,500/-. The petitioners are further entitled to Rs.77,000/- 1( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.2514 of 2014
(Rs.40,000/- + 15,000 + Rs.15,000/- + 10%) towards loss of spousal consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as per Pranay Sethi (supra). The amount awarded towards Ex.A7/medical bills at Rs.5,40,000/- stands the same.
7. In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 14,67,500/- towards compensation. However, they are awarded only Rs.7,33,750/- in view of deduction of 50% due to the contributory negligence of the deceased.
8. With regard to enhancement of compensation in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, this court is relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash Vs Divisional Manager3. A careful reading of the said decision would reveal that an Appellate Court is enabled/empowered to pass any order which ought to have been passed by the trial Court even if the claimant had not filed any appeal or cross-objection and the Appellate Court is vested with the duty to do complete justice to the parties. As such, no irregularity would arise in the event the awarded compensation is enhanced. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Alwin Lobo and Ors.4, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while enhancing the compensation in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, has observed as follows: 3
Civil Appeal No.6110 of 2011 decided on 29.07.2011.4
MANU/KA/5031/2022
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.2514 of 2014
"17. Now, coming to the aspect of invoking Order 41Rule 33 of C.P.C. to award just and reasonable compensation, it is settled law that in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the Court can invoke Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C., if injustice is caused to the victim or deceased while awarding compensation. ............ Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C. to enhance the compensation."
As such, no irregularity would arise in the event the compensation amount is enhanced.
9. Resultantly, the M.A.C.M.A is dismissed. However, the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.5,51,000/- to Rs.7,33,750/- (Rupees Seven Lakh, Thirty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty only) with interest at 7.5% p.a. The appellant/respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The manner in which the awarded amount to be apportioned is in the same ratio as directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 10th day of March, 2023 BDR