THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.680 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2006 in O.P.No.301 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short 'The Tribunal'), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,64,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Four Thousand only) as compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.00% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal directed respondents to deposit the amount.
3. The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V Rules for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for the death of one Male Prasadh in a Motor Vehicle accident.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company Limited.
5. Heard Sri K.L.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
6. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was working as Motor Cycle Mechanic under one K.Enna Reddy at Shadnagar, while so, on 30.03.2003 at about 04:30 p.m., he has 2 SKS,J MACMA.No.680_2009 repaired T.V.S Max 100 bearing No. AP 22 F 1537 and went on trial of the same at Pargi-Shadnagar road. While he was passing in the left side near Electricity Office, the offending lorry came from Pargi side in a high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot.
7. The Tribunal on consideration 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.1,64,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants filed the present appeal.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not sufficient. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the claim.
9. As there is no dispute with regard to the negligence and liability. With regard to the income of the deceased on the date of accident, as seen from the record, the deceased is an unmarried son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and according to them, deceased was a two-wheeler mechanic and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Whereas, the Tribunal not considered the evidence of P.W.2 and has taken income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum accessing the income of Rs.100 per day. As the deceased is working as 3 SKS,J MACMA.No.680_2009 Mechanic, which is an admitted fact and also P.W.2 and 4 deposed the same and accident occurred when he was testing the vehicle, as such, the employment cannot be disputed. Therefore, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1 . Since the deceased was a bachelor, his personal and living expenses shall be deducted at 50% which comes to Rs.1,500/-. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.3,24,000/- (Rs.1500x12x18) for loss of annual future income due to death of the deceased. Under the loss of parental consortium, the parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each. Further this Court is inclined to grant Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
10. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the claimants are entitled to the following amounts:
Heads Amounts
Loss of dependency Rs.3,24,000/-
Loss of parental consortium Rs. 80,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000 /-
Total Rs.4,34,000/-
1
(2009) 6 SCC 121
4
SKS,J
MACMA.No.680_2009
11. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
12. 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."
13. 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. 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.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,64,000/- to Rs.4,34,000/-. 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, 2 (2011) 10 SCC 756 3 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 5 SKS,J MACMA.No.680_2009 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: 15.11.2023 SAI