HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1064 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No.877 of 2013, dated 08.06.2016, the present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-G.Raj Kumar who is the husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of petitioner Nos.4 and 5. It is stated by the claimants that on 18.01.2013 while the deceased along with his driver P.Srinivas were proceeding in a Santro Car bearing No. AP 09 BM 5721 from Hyderabad towards Yellareddy of Nizamabad District and when they reached the outskirts of Nagasanipaly village of Kowdipally Mandal, the driver of the said car drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, as a result, the car hit to the culvert and turned turtle, due to which the deceased sustained grievous head injury and injuries on vital parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to Area Government 2 Hospital, Narsapur and later to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where he succumbed to the injuries. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 51 years, working as Jamedhar in Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh at Secretariat of Andhra Pradesh and was drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and suffered mental shock and agony. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition and sought to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license and 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-Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record.
3
6. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 was examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined and no document was marked.
7. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.29,52,000/- towards compensation to the appellants-petitioners against the respondents herein who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally, along with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit amount.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that though the tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.29,087/- per month based on Ex.A6 copy of pay slip of the deceased for the month of December 2012, the tribunal did not consider the future prospectus and 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 4 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., car bearing No.AP 09 BM 5721. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW.1 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 car.
11. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 51 years, working as Jamedhar in Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh at Secretariat of Andhra Pradesh and was drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. According to Ex.A6, the income of the deceased was Rs.29,087/- per month. Therefore, considering the same, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.28,79,613/- is awarded towards loss of dependency. However, the tribunal did not consider the future prospects. In light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company 5 Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are also entitled to the future prospects and since the deceased was aged about 51 years at the time of accident, 15% of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.33,450/- (29,087 + 4,363 = 33,450). 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.25,088/- (33,450 - 8,362 = 25,088/-) per month. According to PW-1, the deceased was aged 51 years. Since the deceased was aged about 51 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.25,088/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.33,11,616/-. 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.33,88,616/-.
12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 from Rs.29,52,000/- to Rs.33,88,616/-. 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 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 14.03.2023 pgp