HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.806 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri S.Surender Reddy for the appellants/claimants and Sri. K.Ajay Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2-insurance company
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/ claimants dissatisfied with the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.716 of 2012, dated 03.02.2015 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 01.05.2012 at about 11.20 am, while the deceased i.e., Mohd.Abdul Majeed was proceeding from Yedpally village to Nizamabad on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-25-AH- 4043, when he reached the limits of Bapunagar village at a distance of 6 k.m from Yedpally P.S., one TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.AP-25-W-8611 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the against the motor vehicle, due to which, the deceased received multiple grievous injuries to all over the LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015 2 body and died on the spot. The Police, Yedpally P.S., registered a case under Sections 304-A & 337 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimants, i.e., appellant Nos.1 & 2 are daughters and appellant Nos.3 &4 are sons of deceased, have filed claim petition against owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 (1)(c) of M.V.Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 before the MACT, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% from the date of the accident till the date of realization.
6. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged about 47 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was doing real-estate business and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and appellants lost the support of the deceased.
7. The respondent No.1 owner of offending vehicle filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and further, contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent-insurance company and driver of the offending vehicle having valid driving licnece and it was in force on the date of alleged accident and if the claimants are entitled for any LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015 3 compensation, the same may be granted against the insurance company and finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the insured and insurer of motorcycle are necessary parties and that the compensation claimed by the claimants is highly exorbitant and excess and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
9. On the basis of the pleadings, the MACT has framed the following issues:
i) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace bearing No.AP-25-W-8611 by its rider?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and against whom ?
iii) To what relief ?
10. In order to substantiate the case, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. To disprove the claim of the claimants, RW.1- Sri S.Chandrashekar Reddy, who is the Legal Officer of insurance company was LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015 4 examined on behalf of the respondents and Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was marked.
11. The MACT, after considering the evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Ace bearing registration No.AP-25-W-8611 and awarded compensation as under:
Sl.No. Head Amount awarded
1 Loss of dependency Rs. 5,76,000/-
2 Loss of love & affection and Rs. 50,000/-
care
3 Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Total: Rs. 6,51,000/-
12. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for appellants/claimants submitted that the MACT has erred in not granting the total amount of compensation as claimed, that the MACT ought to have considered the earnings of deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month by doing real estate business. However, the MACT failed to consider the same and considered only an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month, which is against the evidence on record and finally prayed for enhancement of compensation as claimed by the appellants in the claim petition.
LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015 5
13. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for insurance company submitted that the claimants have failed to prove the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- by filing supporting documents and evidence and the MACT, on appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record, has taken the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- and awarded just and proper compensation though there is no evidence, material in support of income of the deceased and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the award of the MACT and finally, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Consideration:
14. With regard to the quantum of monthly income of the deceased, the MACT has rightly taken the monthly income at Rs.8,000/- as deceased was doing real estate business. In the absence of any proof with regard to the income of the deceased, this Court is of the considered view that the MACT has rightly considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- and thus, does not warrant interference by this Court.
15. With regard to the quantum of awarding compensation towards future prospects, the MACT erred in not awarding of 10% LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015 6 of the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects in view of the decision of Hon'ble National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1. In Pranay Sethi, Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased is self-employed or on a fixed salary an addition of 10% of established income should be warrant where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years.
16. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the dependents of the deceased are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and therefore, the award is modified to the above extent.
17. Since the dependents of the deceased are four, one-fourth of the income to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) at paragraph-30 instead of one-third deducted by MACT.
18. With regard to multiplier, as per the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier is '9' for the age groups of 56 to 60.
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015 7 Conclusion:
19. In view of the above, the appellants are entitled for the following compensation:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Loss of dependency Rs.8,64,000/-(Rs.8,000/- x 12
x 9) minus one-fourth i.e.,
Rs.2,16,000/-, which comes to
Rs.6,48,000/-
2 Future prospects Rs.64,800/- (i.e., 10% of
annual income i.e.,
Rs.6,48,000/-)
3 Total loss of dependency Rs.6,48,000/- + Rs.64,800 =
Rs.7,12,800/-
4 Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 1,60,000/-
each of the claimants)
5 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
6 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation to be Rs. 9,02,800/-
paid
20. The Appeal is allowed enhancing compensation from
Rs.6,51,000/- to Rs.9,02,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
21. The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by duly adjusting the amounts, if any, already paid to the claimants. The ratio of apportionment of amounts LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015 8 among the appellants/claimants and the permission to withdrawal of amounts shall be in accordance with the terms of the award passed by the MACT. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
[[ ____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 06.10.2023 Ktm/kkm