THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.727 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02.09.2011 passed in O.P.No.932 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, Bodhan (for short "the Tribunal") seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 16.09.2004 at about 11.30 a.m. one Durki Gangadhar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was travelling in the Auto bearing No.AP-25-U-2462 from Vakheel Faram and proceeding towards Rudrur Village, and when the said Auto was passing at the distance of 6 k.m. from Vakheel Faram, the driver of the Auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and lost control over the Auto and turned turtle, as a result, the deceased came 2 underneath the Auto and received multiple fractures. After the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Bodhan, where he was treated as an inpatient, and thereafter, he was referred to NIMS Hospital for better treatment and the deceased succumbed to injuries on 17.09.2004, while he was being shifted to the Nims Hospital. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-25-U-2462. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and was hale and healthy and was doing agriculture and also driving an Auto and earning Rs.10,000/- per month on agriculture and Rs.6,000/- per month as an Auto driver. Therefore, the petitioners filed the O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex- parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition.
5. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked to prove the petitioners' case. None were examined but marked Ex.B1-copy of Insurance Policy on behalf of the respondents.
3
6. After hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,41,000/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier '13' by taking the age of the deceased's mother instead of '18' by taking the age of the deceased. The Tribunal erroneously fixed the deceased's income at Rs.3,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation under other heads. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.
4
10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the respondents do not challenge the same.
11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the petitioners stated that the deceased was doing agriculture and also driving the Auto, earning Rs.10,000/- per month on agriculture and Rs.6,000/- per month as an Auto driver. But, no material is placed with regard to the income of the deceased. In those circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the deceased's income at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is very meagre. In the changed circumstances, even a coolie is getting a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAMCHANDRAPPA Vs. MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 1, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Apart from the same, the petitioners are entitled to an addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2. Therefore, the monthly income of 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 2 2017 ACJ 2700 5 the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). From this, 50% is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3 as the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the accident. After deducting 50% towards his personal and living expenses, the deceased's contribution to the family comes to Rs.3,150/- per month. As the deceased's age was 25 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '18'. Adopting multiplier '18', the total loss of earnings comes to Rs.3,150/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.6,80,400/-. The petitioners are entitled to Rs.33,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + 10%) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Further, considering the fact that the petitioners are the parents of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.80,000/- under the head of the filial consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 4. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, which needs no 3 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 interference by this Court. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.7,98,400/-.
12. The court below has awarded the rate of interest at 6 % per annum, and the same needs no interference by this Court. However, the petitioners are entitled to the interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount.
13. Though the claimed amount is Rs.5,00,000/-, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh 5, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
14. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.7,98,400/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.2,41,000/-.
15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,41,000/- to Rs.7,98,400/- (Rupees Seven lakhs ninety eight thousand four hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. on the 5 MANU/SC/0480/2013 7 enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court fee. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 08.11.2023 Prv