HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.293 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal in M.V.O.P. No.364 of 2014, dated 9.8.2016, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioners, on 07.02.2014 at about 23.00 hours the deceased-Mohammed Saidulu was proceeding on Warangal-Khammam Highway and in the meanwhile, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 2116 being driven by its driver came from Khammam side to Warangal side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which, he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Later he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment and while undergoing treatment, on 8.2.2014 he succumbed to injuries at 3-30 a.m. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 56 years, working as a labourer and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of 2 Rs.6,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 filed counter disputing the manner of accident. It is further contended that the offending lorry was insured with respondent No.2 as on the date of accident and as such, respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not having valid driving license and he was charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 181 and 184(B) of Motor Vehicles Act and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and as such, they prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2- National Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record.
7. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,41,000/- towards compensation to the 3 appellants-petitioners along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of petition till the date of realization. However, respondent No.2 is directed to pay the said awarded compensation to the petitioners in first instance and recover the same from the respondent No.1.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5, established the fact that the death of the deceased-Mohammed Saidulu was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP.12.T.2116. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, rightly held that the 4 accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry.
11. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to Exs.A2 and A3 i.e., inquest and postmortem examination report, the deceased was aged 55 years. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a labourer and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is very less. Therefore, considering the avocation of the deceased as a labourer and the accident is of the year 2014, 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 also entitled to the future prospects and since the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident, 10% of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.6,600/- (6,000 + 600 = 6,600). Since the deceased left as many as two persons as the dependants, 1/3rd of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.4,400/- (6,600 - 2,200 = 4,400) per month. As stated above, the deceased was aged 55 years. Since the deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 would be "11". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.4,400/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.5,80,800/-. In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.6,57,800/-.
12. With regard to the liability, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the driver was not possessing valid driving license and the driver drove it without possessing the valid driving license. A perusal of the impugned award shows that R.W.1, employee of the Insurance Company reiterating the same in his affidavit and further deposed in his cross- examination that the policy was in force by the time of accident with badge No.153998. RW-2 Sd.Nadeem Majeed deposed that as per the driving license extrart, the RTA issued driving license valid from 22.2.2010 to 22.2.2013 and he got renewed and the same is valid 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 from 13.2.2014 to 12.2.2017 and RW-2 further deposed that the driving skills are same for both transport and non-transport and the driving license is valid from 22.2.1992 to 12.12.2017.
13. In Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others3, the Apex Court held that "the mere fact that the driver who possessed a licence to drive the light motor vehicle did not possess a licence to drive heavy transport vehicle by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the insurance company would be absolved of its liability to pay compensation".
14. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment referred to above, this Court finds that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,41,000/- to Rs.6,57,800/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 3 (2016) 4 SCC 298 7 jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 13.03.2023 pgp