THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1954 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2006 in O.P.No.451 of 2005 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karmingar, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,22,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty-Two Thousand only) as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the amount.
3. The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road accident.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the private service bus bearing No. AP07T4142 and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company Limited.
5. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2
SKS,J MACMA.No.1954_2008
6. Insurance Company not filed any appeal disputing the liability and also disputing the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
7. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is the father of the deceased and an eye witness for the accident. The evidence of the appellant is that the deceased is the only daughter and she has aged about 16 years and was prosecuting her studies beside helping him in agricultural works. However, the wife of the appellant is also died in the same accident. Therefore, appellant is the only dependent. Further, he deposed about the accident which took place on 03.04.2004 that the deceased was going along with her mother and other women to attend calls of nature. Appellant is also going on the same purpose towards another direction. Then, a bus bearing No.AP7T4142 came from Hyderabad, proceeding towards Manthani in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and his wife and some other women, as a result they sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
8. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the same vehicle is insured with respondent No.2, as such, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,22,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimant filed the present appeal. 3
SKS,J MACMA.No.1954_2008
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal awarded sufficient amount and there is no need to enhance the said amount.
10. As seen from the record, to prove the claim, the appellant himself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3.
11. With regard to the income of the deceased on the date of accident, as seen from the record, the deceased is an unmarried daughter of the appellant. Hence, this Court is inclined to consider the salary of deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. As the daughter is unmarried 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, as per law laid down in Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 1. Thus, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimant would be of Rs.12,000/- (2000-1000 X 12) per annum and as far as the multiplier is concerned, appropriate multiplier for the age group of 16 is '18' then the total amount comes to Rs.2,16,000/-. The claimant is entitled for the said amount under the head of loss of future income. As there is one claimant, he is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. This Court is inclined to grant Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
12. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the claimants are entitled to the following amounts:
1
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 4 SKS,J MACMA.No.1954_2008 Head Compensation awarded (1) Loss of future income Rs.2,16,000/-
(2) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
(3) Loss of parental consortium Rs.40,000/-
(4) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.2,86,000/-
13. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
14. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another 2, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 3 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
15. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. 2 (2011) 10 SCC 756 3 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 5 SKS,J MACMA.No.1954_2008 Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,22,000/- to Rs.2,86,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty-Six Thousand only). The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents jointly and severally after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one(1) month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment and thereafter, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J DATE:
SAI