THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3230 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioner aggrieved by the order and decree dated 07.09.2009 passed in O.P.No.1132 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2007, while the deceased Manjula Marry, aged seven years, was returning from School to her hostel and when she reached Muthangi Church at N.H.9, a Lorry bearing No.RJ-14-2G-8067 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which, the deceased died instantaneously. The police Patancheru registered a case in Cr.No.360 of 2007 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending Lorry. Hence, the claim petition is filed by the parents of the deceased for Rs.2,50,000/- owing to the death of their minor daughter.
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.3230 of 2011
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying all the petition allegations.
5. To prove their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 and adduced no oral evidence on behalf of respondent No.2, but Ex.B1 was marked with consent.
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners.
7. There is no dispute with regard to involvement of offending lorry. As such, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry based on Ex.A1/certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2/certified copy of chargesheet, Ex.A4/certified copy of Inquest and Ex.A5/certified copy of Postmortem report, apart from the evidence of eyewitness-PW.2, which requires no interference by this Court.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.3230 of 2011
8. Coming to the quantum of compensation, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inter-alia contended that the Tribunal awarded a very meagre amount that must be interfered with. He prayed this Court to award Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
11. Recently in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another (2022) 1 SCC 317, wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6.9.2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs. 25,000/-, applying the multiplier of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs. 3,75,000/- and adding Rs. 55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs. 4,70,000/-.
12. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively.
1
2022 LiveLaw(SC) 841
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.3230 of 2011
14. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.
15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation, as awarded by the High Court is enhanced by Rs. 3,00,000/-, in addition. The total amount of compensation would be Rs. 5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition till realization. The due amount be paid by the respondent No. 4 - United India Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from today.
Accordingly, prayed to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also conceded the principle laid in the above judgment.
9. Since there is no conflict as regards the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi (Supra), this Court is inclined to allow the appeal by awarding Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakh only) with interest @ 7% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realisation.
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.3230 of 2011
10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakh only) with costs and interest @7% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same subject to payment of the deficit Court fee within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 26th day of September 2023 BDR