HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 23 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nirmal in M.V.O.P. No.105 of 2017, dated 04.10.2019, 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. The facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Palle Srinivasa Reddy. On 19.08.2016 at about 7-15 p.m. the deceased was proceeding as a rider on the motorcycle bearing No. AP.01.AC.5359 from Khanapur to Narsapur village and when they reached near Sathenapally village, one tractor bearing No.AP.01.L.5959 driven by the respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from the opposite direction, due to which, the deceased fell down and received grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Khanapur in 108 Ambulance and 2 from there he was referred to Sri Krishna Neuro and Multi Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad and a surgery was performed for removal bone fragments and evacuation of SDH with contusion on 19.8.2016 and while undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to the injuries on 26.8.2016. It is further alleged that the deceased was hale and healthy and used to work as Sales Executive in Sri Bhadrakali Paints, Hanamkonda and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, petitioners suffered mental agony and heavy loss. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.30 lakhs against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte; Respondent No.3 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the deceased died due to his own negligence and there is no involvement of the tractor in the accident and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Considering the claim petition and the counter filed by the Insurance Company, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.9,87,200/- towards compensation to the appellants-petitioners against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally along with proportionate 3 costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization, as against the claim of Rs.30 lakhs.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-The New India Assurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants have proved that the deceased was working as Sales Executive in Sri Bhadrakali Paints, Hanamkonda and earning Rs.25,000/- per month by examining PW-3 who is the Proprietor of Sri Bhadrakali Paints, Hanamkonda and got filed Ex.A4 salary certificate issued by PW-3, the tribunal has not considered the same and awarded meager amount by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month.
8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company argued that though PW-3 was examined to prove Ex.A4 salary certificate, but he has not produced any documentary proof to show that he was the Proprietor of Sri Bhadrakali Paints, Hanamkonda and furthermore, he has not filed any authenticated document to show that he is paying Rs.25,000/- per month towards 4 salary of the deceased and the tribunal has rightly considered the same and taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, the same needs no interference by this Court.
9. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company contended that the deceased died due to his own negligence and there is no involvement of the tractor in the accident, the tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence available on record rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing No. AP 01 L 5959.
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, PW-1 being the wife of the deceased deposed that her husband was aged 30 years and was working as Sales Executive in Sri Bhadrakali Paints, Hanamkonda and earning Rs.25,000/- per month and got filed Ex.A4 salary certificate and in proof of the same, she got examined PW-3. However, as rightly argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, PW-3 has not produced any documentary proof to show that he is the Proprietor of Sri Bhadrakali Paints, Hanamkonda and further the salary certificate was not given on letter head of the said firm and it was typed on a white paper. Further no deductions mentioned in 5 the salary certificate. However, the deceased is a Post Graduate and also having original passport under Ex.A5, which shows that the deceased was educated and has a bright future. Therefore, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.15,000/- per month. In Ex.A2 Inquest panchanama, the age of the deceased was shown as 33 years. Therefore, the same can be considered for calculating the loss of dependency. 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 33 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.21,000/- (15,000 + 6,000 = 21,000/-). Since the deceased left as many as five persons as the dependants, 1/4th of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.15,750/- (21,000 - 5,250 = 15,750) per month. Since the deceased was aged about 33 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 "16". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.15,750/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.30,24,000/-. In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are granted 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are minor children of the deceased are also entitled to filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per the Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.31,81,000/-.
11. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 who is driver of the tractor bearing No. AP 01 L 5959 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, the tribunal rightly held that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.9,87,200/- to Rs.31,81,000/-. 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 to 3 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 3 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 7 order. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee and on such payment of deficit court fee only, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the compensation awarded to them without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 14.03.2023 pgp