THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.352 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 27.09.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1664 of 2013 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one E.Devamma, mother of claimant Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.03.2013. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased, along with her son and granddaughter, was proceeding on scooty bearing No. AP 28 CA 1840 from KPHB church to Yellammaband and at about 05:00 p.m., when she reached near Bhavani Textiles, one Car bearing No. AP 28 TV 2 MGP, J Macma_352_2019 3132, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver, came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, for treatment but the deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 48 years and earning Rs.7,500/- per month as skilled worker. Therefore, the claimants, being children of deceased, filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads.
4. Before the tribunal, while the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte, the respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the petition averments and also denied the age, income, avocation and manner of the accident. He further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Considering the claim of appellants, counter filed by respondent No. 2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part, awarding a 3 MGP, J Macma_352_2019 total compensation of Rs.2,40,234/- along with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the claimants have filed this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused the material available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month as claimed by the appellants but has fixed the meagre income of Rs.4,500/- per month. He further contended that the Tribunal has erred in not adding future prospects as per the decision of Apex Court.
8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 herein has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
4
MGP, J Macma_352_2019
9. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW.1, eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record i.e., Exs.A.1, FIR & A.2, Charge sheet, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing No. AP 28 TV 3132. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
10. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, although the claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 48 years, Exs.A.4, Post mortem examination report & A.1, FIR shows that the deceased was aged about 50 years and Ex.A.6, medical bills, Sankya Hospital, Hyderabad, shows the age of the deceased as 62 years. The Tribunal has erroneously taken the age of the deceased as 62 years basing on the Ex.A.6, medical bills, Sankya Hospital, Hyderabad. Hence, Considering the Ex.A.4, postmortem examination report, this Court is inclined to take the age of the deceased as 50 years. Coming to the income of the deceased, according 5 MGP, J Macma_352_2019 to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- per month as skilled worker. But no evidence is adduced to prove the income or avocation of the deceased. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-per month. However, even considering the avocation of the deceased as coolie, the fixation of the said income by the Tribunal appears to be less. It is observed by the Court that the deceased was widow and was working hard for the welfare of the family apart from doing unpaid house hold work. Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. Since, the deceased was aged 50 years, 10% was added towards future prospects as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, which works out to Rs.6,600/- (Rs.6,000 + Rs.600). As there are two dependents, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and living expenses, the net monthly income of the deceased works out to Rs.4,400/- (Rs.6,600 - Rs.2,200). Since the age of the deceased was 50 years, as held by the Tribunal, the 1 2017 ACJ 2700 6 MGP, J Macma_352_2019 appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Adopting multiplier '13', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,86,400/- (Rs.4,400 x 12 x 13). That apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Further, the claimants, being the major sons of the deceased, are not entitled for 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 compensation of Rs.7,19,400/-.
11. Insofar as 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 enhanced compensation from the date of petition till realization but not 6% as was awarded by the Tribunal.
2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 7 MGP, J Macma_352_2019
12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,40,234/- to Rs.7,19,400/-. 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 & 2 jointly and severally. 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 entitled to withdraw their respective share of compensation without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 29.03.2023 gms 8 MGP, J Macma_352_2019 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.352 of 2019 DATE: 29.03.2023 gms