HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.277 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri A.Madhava Reddy for the appellant/claimant and Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant dissatisfied with the award passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2356 of 2012, dated 07.08.2014 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 19.08.2012, while the deceased i.e., Kistamma was proceeding towards Jammichedu village after attending agricultural coolie work along with others in an auto bearing registration No.AP-21-Y-9928 and on the way at about 7.30 p.m., when they reached nearby the agricultural lands of one Jallapuram Srinivasalu, the driver of the tractor bearing registration NO.AP-22-U-9057 and its trolley bearing no.AP-22-U- 9058, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015 2 the auto, resulting which, the occupant i.e., deceased received bleeding injuries to her head, right eye and shoulder and died on the spot and other passengers received injuries. The Police, Gadwal Police Station registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2022 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimant, i.e., appellant No.1, who is father of the deceased, had filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest.
6. The claimant claimed that the deceased was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing was coolie work and contributing the same to herself and her old aged father i.e., claimant. Due to sudden death of deceased, the life of the claimant became miserable and suffering with mental shock and agony and he lost her love and affection and financial support of the deceased.
7. The respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte.
LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015 3
8. The respondent no.2-insurance company filed counter denying the allegations i.e., the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, negligence of driver of crime vehicle and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the MACT framed the following issues:
i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, from whom ?
ii) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 19.08.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing no.AP-22-U- 9057 and trolley bearing no.AP-22-U-9058 ?
iii) To what relief?
10. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the appellant- claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no witness was examined, but insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
11. The Tribunal, on due consideration of evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015 4 annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The owner of the crime vehicle and insurance company i.e., respondent Nos.1 & 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
12. During the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, instead of Rs.15,000/- per annum. He submitted that the Court below ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs as claimed by the claimant in the claim petition. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in not adding 50% of the income of the deceased as future prospects. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh and others 1.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed, the Hon'ble Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation. He further contended that Tribunal had rightly exonerated the insurance company its liability on due 1 2013 ACJ 1403 LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015 5 consideration of the evidence and material placed on record and no ground is made out by the appellant to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Consideration :
14. With regard to the monthly income of the deceased, the Tribunal had taken the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-, which is in dispute in the present appeal.
15. In Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Rayal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs-13 & 14 observed that, "13..........appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as coolie and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of the accident.
......
The appellant was working as a coolie and, therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant.
"14..........the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not 2 (2011) 13 SCC 236 LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015 6 accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time."
16. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), this Court is of the considered view that monthly earnings of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/-, even in the absence of any evidence.
17. So far as award of future prospects, in National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of established income should be warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Since the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident was 38 years, which is evident from Ex.A4-PME report, an addition of 40% of the income of the deceased can be added as future prospects.
18. Since the claimant is only the dependent of the deceased, one-third of the income towards personal and living expenses to be 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015 7 deducted as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 4 at paragraph-30.
19. With regard to the multiplier, as per the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier is '15' for the age groups of 36 to 40. In the instant appeal, as the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident was 38 years, the appropriate multiplier is '15'.
20. With regard to the award of consortium, the Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in the case of Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 5 decided on 06.12.2022, taking into consideration the decision of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Sarala Verma (supra), as also in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of parental consortium. The said enhancement and revision has been done taking into consideration, raise in the cost of expenses and cost of living that has arisen during the intervening period from the date of decisions of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in its Constitutional Bench decision 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 2023(1) ALD 107(SC) LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015 8 had said that there shall be 10% hike on the compensation awarded under general damages every three years. Conclusion:
21. In view of the above, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income Rs.4,500/- per month
2 Future prospects Rs.1,800/- (i.e.40% of the income)
3 Deduction towards personal Rs.2,100/- (i.e., one-third of
expenses Rs.6,300/-)
4 Total Annual income Rs.50,400/- (i.e., Rs.4,500/- +
1,800/- (-) Rs.2,100/-) x 12
5 Multiplier 15
6 Loss of dependency Rs.7,56,000/- (i.e., Rs.50,400/- x 15)
7 Compensation for loss of Rs. 44,000/-
consortium
8 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
9 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation to be paid : Rs.8,30,000/-
22. The Appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.8,30,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay the said compensation amount jointly and severally within a LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015 9 period of eight (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount if any already paid. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
23. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 07 .11.2023 Kkm