THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 05.06.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.61 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, (for short 'the Tribunal'), the appellants/petitioners preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-
On 21.12.2006 at about 9.30 a.m., while one Narasimha (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was proceeding on a TVS motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-P-4093 from Ghatkesar to Annojiguda, one lorry bearing No.AP-26- T-8348, coming from Hyderabad towards Ghatkesar in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011 Ghatkesar registered a case in Cr.No.277 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending lorry. Therefore, the petitioners filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
4. To prove the petitioners' case, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
5. After hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased's income at Rs.100/- per day instead of Rs.300/- per day.
3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011 The Tribunal erred in fixing the age of the deceased as 63 years instead of 50 years. The Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier '13' instead of '5'. The Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation under other heads and, therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence available on record, has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.
9. 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.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing toddy supply and contracts. In support of their contention, the petitioners have examined PW.3-
4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011 Director of Kallu Geeta Parishramika Sahakara Sangham, Ghatkesar. PW.3 deposed that the deceased was a member of their Society and the deceased was working as a toddy tapper and selling toddy and earning Rs.300/- to Rs.350/- per day and he identified Ex.A-4 issued by their Society. The evidence of PW.3 is not supported by any documentary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day, which is very meager. 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 Apex 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/-. The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500/- X 12). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 as the dependents are six in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011 deceased to the family would be Rs.40,500/- (Rs.54,000/- - Rs.13,500/-) per annum. To prove the deceased's age, the petitioners are relying on Ex.A-3-Post Mortem Report and Ex.A-5-Identity Card issued in the year 1987. As per Ex.A- 5 as on 09.09.1987 the deceased's age was 43 years. If Ex.A-5 is taken into consideration, the age of the deceased was 63 years as on the date of the accident. The petitioners have not filed any evidence to prove the age of the deceased. By taking into consideration the age mentioned under Ex.A- 5, the Tribunal rightly fixed the age of the deceased as 63 years and the same needs no interference by this Court. As per SARLA VERMA's case (2 supra) 3, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age of the deceased is '7'. Adopting multiplier '7', the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.2,83,500/- (Rs.40,500/- x 7). The petitioners are further entitled to Rs.77,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 15,000 + Rs.15,000/- + 10%) towards loss of spousal consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as per Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,83,500/-.
3
2009 ACJT 1298 (SC)
6 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011
11. The Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest at 9% per annum, which needs no interference by this Court. However, the petitioners are entitled to the interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation.
12. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,83,500/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.1,35,000/-.
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,35,000/- to Rs.2,83,500/- (Rupees two lakh eighty three thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the 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 a period of 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 7 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011 the Tribunal. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 15th November, 2023 Prv