HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3443 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem in M.A.T.O.P. No. 947 of 2011 dated 09.06.2014, 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. Appellants are the petitioners in the main petition. According to the petitioners, on 28.05.2011 at about 16-00 hours while the deceased- Podiyam Rajulu and his relative was proceeding in an auto bearing No. AP 20 TP 7900 and reached near Burgampahad Village on R & B Road, at that time, the driver of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 33 C 9788 drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the auto. As a result of which, the deceased and other inmates of the auto have received several injuries. The deceased was shifted to Bhadrachalam Hospital for treatment and he was succumbed with injuries on the even day. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 43 years at the time the accident, earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum on his agriculture. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under 2 various heads against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the offending motorcycle respectively.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. In order to prove their case, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of respondent No.2 no witnesses were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and as there is no representation for the respondent No.2 on 18.1.2023, the matter is directed to be listed on 20.1.2023 and that on 20.1.2023 also, respondent No.2 did not submit his arguments. The matter pertains to the year 2014. Hence, the matter is reserved for judgment. Perused the material available on record.
7. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,18,800/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
3
8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.5, established the fact that the death of the deceased- Podiyam Rajulu was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
9. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.AP 33 C 9788. 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 motorcycle.
10. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 43 years at the time the accident. But, no date of birth certificate was filed by the claimants to prove the age of the deceased. However, as per Ex.A1 First Information Report, Ex.A3 Inquest report and Ex.A4 Postmortem examination report, the age of the deceased was 48 years. Therefore, the tribunal rightly taken the age of the deceased as '48' years. Coming to the income of the deceased, though the petitioners stated that the deceased was used to earn Rs.1,00,000/- as an agriculturist, no evidence was produced by the 4 petitioners to prove the same. Therefore, considering the avocation of the deceased, the tribunal taken the income of the deceased at Rs.150/- per day and taken monthly income at Rs.3,600/- per month by excluding six days, which appears to be very less. Hence, considering the age, avocation of the deceased and the accident is of the year 2011, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. As stated above, the deceased was aged 48 years. Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 25% of his income, since the deceased was aged in between 48 years. Then it comes to Rs.5,625/- (4,500 + 1,125 = 5,625/-). From this, 1/4th of the actual income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependants are four in number. After deducting 1/4th of the amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.4,219/- per month (5,625 - 1,406 = 4,219/-). Since the deceased was aged in between 48 years by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '13', the total loss of dependency would be 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 Rs.4,219 x 12 x 13 = Rs.6,58,164/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,35,164/-.
11. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,18,800/- to Rs.7,35,164/-. 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. The petitioners shall pay the deficit court fee and on such payment of court fee amount only, 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 15.03.2023.
pgp