HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3086 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P. No.137 of 2014, dated 10.05.2018, 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 29-10-2013 the deceased- Akhtar Unnisa was returning to Hyderabad after attending her relative's function at Bidar in DCM van bearing No. AP 12 V 3788 along with other relatives and when they reached Vattinagulapally at about 4-45 a.m., the DCM driver dashed another stationed DCM van bearing No. KA 40 7796 which was parked in the middle of road negligently without taking necessary precautions and without keeping parking lights etc. from its back side, as the DCM driver failed to observe the DCM van due to darkness and the high beam focus lights of the opposite coming vehicles. Due to which Akhtar Unnisa died on the spot and others have suffered grievous injuries. According 2 to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 46 years, tailor by profession and used to earn Rs.6,500/- per month. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the offending DCM van bearing No.KA 40 7796.
4. Respondent remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record.
6. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,15,600/- towards compensation along with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, to the appellants- claimants against the respondents herein who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally. 3
7. 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.P.1 to P.5, established the fact that the death of the deceased- Akhtar Unnisa was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
8. 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.
9. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e., DCM van bearing No.KA 40 7796. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 46 years, working as tailor and used to earn Rs.6,500/- per 4 month. However, as the petitioners have not filed any documentary evidence to prove the earnings of the deceased as a tailor, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which appears to be very less. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the postmortem examination report, the age of the deceased was 50 years. 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 50 years at the time of accident, 25% of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.6,250/- (5,000 + 1,250 = 6,250). Since the deceased left as many as eight persons as the dependants, 1/5th of her income is to be deducted towards her personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.5,000/- (6,250 - 1,250 = 5,000) per month. Since the deceased was aged about 50 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 "13". 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.7,80,000/-. 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). Further the petitioner No.8 who is minor child of the deceased is also entitled to parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- as per the Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.8,97,000/-.
11. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent parking of the offending DCM Van and it was insured with the second respondent under Ex.B1 covering the date of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,15,600/- to Rs.8,97,000/-. 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 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 6 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