THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3005 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Assailing the order and decree, dated 17.04.2017 made in M.V.O.P.No.528 of 2014 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short "the Tribunal"), the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, preferred this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation being excessive.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties shall be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the death of one Midatapalli Venkanna, husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant Nos. 2 &3, son of claimant Nos. 4 & 5 (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.06.2014. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, the deceased was 2 MGP, J Macma_3005_2017 proceeding on his Auto bearing No.AP 36 Y 0520, along with passengers from Bachodu village to Maripeda bangle on the highway, when he reached Subbledu Cross road of Medidepalli village, Thirumalayapalem, Khammam, at about 01:00 p.m., one DCM van bearing No.AP 28 TD 6163, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.2, appellant herein, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the auto of the deceased, as a result of which, the auto turned turtle and the deceased received severe head injury and died on the spot. It is the further case of the claimants that prior to the accident, the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as auto driver and Rs.2,000/- by working as part time NPMVA in M/s.Sri Ramkrishna Grama Samakya. Due to his sudden demise, the claimants lost their bread winner, love and affection. Therefore, the claimants have laid the claim against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, DCM van.
4. While, respondent No.1 remained ex parte, respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the 3 MGP, J Macma_3005_2017 claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is further contended that the claim is highly excessive and exorbitant and prays to dismiss the O.P.
5. Considering the claim and counter filed by the appellant herein and also the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the tribunal allowed the O.P. awarding a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- towards compensation with interest at 9% per annum, to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. In spite of several adjournments, none appears on behalf of the respondents. Perused the record.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal without proper evidence on record has taken the income of the deceased at 4 MGP, J Macma_3005_2017 Rs.15,000/- per month and further awarded lump sum amount towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses, which are exorbitant and prays to allow the appeal by reducing the quantum of compensation. Further, the learned standing counsel has contended that considering the avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal erred in added 50% future prospects instead it should be restricted to 40%. It is lastly contended that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is on higher side and it should not be more than 7.5% per annum.
8. With regard to the manner in which the accident took place, a perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the Tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM van bearing No.AP 28 TD 6163 causing death of the deceased and having considered the evidence of P.W.2, eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1, F.I.R. and A2, Charge Sheet, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due 5 MGP, J Macma_3005_2017 to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM van and has answered the issue in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM van.
9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as per the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as Auto driver apart from earning Rs.2,000/- by working as part time NPMVA in M/s.Sri Ramkrishna Grama Samakya. In support of their claim, the claimants have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. After considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.7,500/- per month though the claimants have claimed the income at Rs.15,000/- per month. The said income fixed by the tribunal at Rs.7,500/- per month is on higher side considering the avocation of the deceased. Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering the age of the 6 MGP, J Macma_3005_2017 deceased as 36 years at the time of the accident, 40% has to be added, towards future prospects as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, and by adding so, the future monthly income works out to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000 + 2,400). After deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the net income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased as 36 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 is "15". Thus, the future loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,34,000/- (Rs.6,300/- x 12 x 15). However, as rightly stated by the learned standing counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, the Tribunal has awarded excess amount i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium of claimant No.1, Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.50,000/- each to 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 MGP, J Macma_3005_2017 claimant Nos. 2 & 3 under the head of parental consortium, which are all on higher side. Thus, as per Pranay Sethi (Supra), the amount of Rs.3,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is hereby reduced to Rs.77,000/-. Further, the claimant No. 3 alone being the minor daughter of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.12,51,000/-, which is just and reasonable.
10. Insofar rate of interest is concerned, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others4, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization but not 9% as was awarded by the Tribunal.
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 8 MGP, J Macma_3005_2017
11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and the compensation granted by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.18,50,000/- to Rs.12,51,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be deposited by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 20.03.2023 gms/tsr 9 MGP, J Macma_3005_2017 112 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.3005 of 2017 DATE: 20.03.2023 gms/tsr