1 RRN,J
MACMA No.130 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.130 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is preferred by the appellants/petitioners under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation, aggrieved by the order and decree dt.24.09.2013 passed in O.P.No.554 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short "the Tribunal").
2. Heard Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for appearing for the appellants/petitioners and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri G.V. Jayasimha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The petitioner is the wife of Patlavath Balu (hereinafter referred to as "deceased").
Brief facts of the case are that on 17.04.2008 at about 4.30 a.m., while the deceased was travelling in Karnataka RTC Bus bearing No.KA-27-F-02948 from Shadnagar to Hyderabad, on lorry bearing No.AAT-2737 came in opposite direction at high speed in a 2 RRN,J MACMA No.130 of 2014 rash and negligent manner and hit the bus in which the deceased was travelling. Due to this, the deceased and inmates of the bus were sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Shadnagar, from there he was referred to O.G.H., Hyderabad, and thereafter he was shifted to Siddhartha Hospital & Research Centre, Shadnagar, from there again he was shifted to Life Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad and from there he was referred to Neuro Surgeon Dr. K. Srinivas. On 22.04.2008 he was referred to higher centre and against he was shifted to O.G.H. and admitted as an inpatient on 07.06.2008 and later discharged on 04.07.2008. Later, he took treatment privately and at last, he succumbed to injuries on 30.10.2008. It is the further case of the petitioner that the deceased was doing mason work and earning Rs.4,000/- per month and also getting Rs.50,000/- per annum on agriculture. On the complaint of the driver of Karnataka RTC Bus, police Shadnagar registered a case in Cr.No.132 of 2008 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and after completion of the investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AAP-2737. Due to the said accident, the first petitioner lost her life partner. Therefore, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.130 of 2014
5. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte, and respondents No.2 and 3 filed counter before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 contended that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.AAP-2737. Respondent No.3 contended that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Karnataka RTC Bus bearing No.KA-27-F-02948 and the same was taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.AAP-2737 . Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
6. To prove her case, the petitioner got examined PW.1 to PW.3 and marked Ex.A1 to A10. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
7. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim in part by granting compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. to the petitioner. Questioning the quantum, the present appeal is filed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the age, occupation and income of the deceased and the Tribunal 4 RRN,J MACMA No.130 of 2014 rejected the claim of Rs.2.0 lakh towards medical expenses though the deceased was under treatment for about six months in different Hospitals. He further contended that the Tribunal awarded very meagre amounts under different conventional heads. Accordingly, prayed to enhance the compensation amount.
9. Opposing the same, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation amount under various heads and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Upon careful perusal of the record and in light of the submissions made by both counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased more than that of which it arrived at. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was working as a mason and was having agricultural lands in view of Ex.A10/certified copies of pahanies for the years 2005-06 to 2007-08. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as a mason at Rs.4,000/- per month, and Rs.20,000/- per annum on agriculture. However, time and again, this Court 5 RRN,J MACMA No.130 of 2014 has considered the minimum monthly earnings of a skilled labour to be at Rs.5,000/-. As such, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly earnings of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month, and the Tribunal has rightly taken the annual income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- on agriculture. The Tribunal did not add future prospects to the income of the deceased and the same exercise would be done, including enhancing compensation under different heads, as follows:
The petitioners were granted Rs.4,88,125/- 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.4,000/- p.m Rs.5,000/- p.m Annual income Rs.48,000/- Rs.60,000/- + 20,000/-
(Rs.4,000/- x 12) + Rs.20,000/- on (Rs.5,000 x 12) + agriculture Rs.20,000/- on agriculture Future prospects Nil Rs.32,000/- (40% to be taken as per Pranay (Since the Tribunal Sethi) considered the age of the deceased as 30 years) Annual Income + Future Rs.68,000/- + Nil Rs.1,12,000/-
prospects 1/3rd Deduction towards Rs.22,666/- Rs.37,333/-
personal expenses
Age Multiplier 17 "17" (As per Sarla
6 RRN,J
MACMA No.130 of 2014
Verma)
Loss of dependency Rs.7,72,548/- Rs.12,69,339/-
(45,444/- x 17) (Rs.74,667/- x 17)
excluding future including future
prospects. prospects
(But, only Rs.4.00
lakhs awarded under
the said head)
Loss of Estate Nil Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% as
per Pranay Sethi)
Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/- Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% as
per Pranay Sethi)
Loss of Spousal Consortium Rs.5,000/- Rs.44,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- + 10% as
per Pranay Sethi)
Transportation Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.4,15,000/- Rs.13,56,339/-
11. In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.13,56,339/-
towards compensation. Though the claimed amount is Rs.6,00,000/- invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh1 , and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
12. Liability:- Since the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No.AAT-2737 and hit the bus in which the deceased was travelling, respondents No.1 and 2 are 1 MANU/SC/0480/2013 7 RRN,J MACMA No.130 of 2014 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and the claim against respondent No.3 is dismissed.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.13,56,339/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh, Fifty six thousand, three hundred and thirty nine Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited. The appellant is directed to deposit the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. The claim against respondent No.3 is dismissed. 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 14 day of March, 2023 th BDR/PNS