1 RRN,J
MACMA No.859 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A. NO. 859 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
The present M.A.C.M.A is filed by the appellants/petitioners under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the order and decree dt. 13.01.2015 passed in M.V.O.P No. 2213 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal). This is a case of death.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claim petition was filed for Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the death of one J.Ramulu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,68,800/- to the petitioners and aggrieved by the quantum, the present appeal is filed for enhancement of the compensation amount.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. The petitioners contended that the deceased, on 05.06.2012 at about 7.00 pm was going to his house along with one K. Laxamaiah in their cycles and when they reached Bharathi Gas Company, the driver of a car bearing No. AP-7-AN-5355 belonging to 2 RRN,J MACMA No.859 of 2015 the 1st respondent was driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. Due to the accident, the deceased suffered a severe head injury and injuries to other parts of his body and died on the spot. The deceased was aged 48 years, professing agriculture and was running a dairy farm by selling milk to vegetable vendors and used to earn Rs.12,000/- p.m. Hence, on the account of loss of dependency, the petitioners filed the claim petition.
6. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition.
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs.1-3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. No oral evidence was adduced by the 2nd respondent but Ex.B1 was marked.
8. On appreciating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned order as stated supra, which is under challenge.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the compensation awarded was meagre and the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at least at Rs.8,000/- per month in view of the Gazette Publication dt.31.05.2010 wherein the 3 RRN,J MACMA No.859 of 2015 Government of India notified that workmen under the Employees' Compensation Act are entitled to a minimum of Rs.8,000/- p.m as wages. He further contended that the Tribunal did not award future prospects on the income of the deceased and further failed to award just compensation under the conventional heads. Accordingly, prayed to enhance the compensation.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company argued that there is no fault in the impugned order as the petitioners failed to file any income proof of the deceased. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. The petitioners have not filed any document in proof of income of the deceased and the Tribunal has made guesswork with respect to the income of the deceased and rightly arrived at Rs.6,000/- p.m and the same is justified as the Tribunal took note of the fact that the deceased was working in the field of agriculture. The contention of the petitioners that the Gazette Notification (supra) should be considered in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- p.m is rejected as it is specifically mentioned that only the employees who fall under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 are entitled to such monthly wages. As such, this Court is not inclined to re-evaluate the monthly income of the deceased.
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.859 of 2015
12. However, the Tribunal failed to award future prospects and compensation under other heads and the petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation. For the calculation of loss of dependency, the addition of future prospects of 25% to the monthly income of the deceased is appropriate as he was aged 50 years. Hence, Rs.6,000/- + 25% = Rs.7,500/- p.m. and the same would come to Rs.7,500/- x 12 = Rs.90,000/- annually. One-fifth amount is to be deducted towards contribution as there are 6 dependants and the apt multiplier is '13'. Hence, Rs.90,000/- (-) 1/5 x 13 = 9,36,000/- is the loss of dependency. As such, the petitioners are entitled to compensation as under:
Head Amount
Loss of dependency Rs. 9,36,000/-
Loss of Spousal Consortium Rs.44,000/-(Rs.40,000/- +
10%) as per Pranay Sethi1.
Loss of Estate Rs.16,500 (Rs.15,000/- + 10%)
as per Pranay Sethi.
Funeral expenses Rs.16,500 (Rs.15,000/- + 10%)
as per Pranay Sethi.
Filial Consortium to 6th Rs.40,000/- as per Magma
respondent. General Insurance2
Total Rs. 10,53,000/-
13. Petitioners No.2 to 5 claimed Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium but as seen from the record, they are all majors, as such, they are not entitled to the same.
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
2
2018) 18 SCC 130
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.859 of 2015
14. In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.10,53,000/- towards compensation. Though the claimed amount is Rs.8,00,000/- invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh3 , and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.7,68,800/- to Rs.10,53,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Only). The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The difference of the enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5%. The manner in which ratio the awarded amount apportioned by the Tribunal is to be maintained. The appellants are directed to deposit the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 14th day of March, 2023 BDR 3 MANU/SC/0480/2013