HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.16 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri P.Sriharsha Reddy for the appellants/claimants and Sri. A.V.K.Prasad, learned standing counsel for respondent no.3.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/ claimants dissatisfied with the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.211 of 2009, dated 24.07.2014 and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 17.07.2008, the deceased i.e., Geesa Shakar went to Suryapet on personal work and after completion of his work, he boarded an Auto bearing registration No.AP-24-V-2122 to go to their native place Jajireddygudem and at 8.00 pm. While the Auto was proceeding near Moodu Motala Bavi, a Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No.AP-24-W-0515 and AP-24-W-0516 dashed the said Auto from opposite direction and due to which, the deceased LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015 2 received grievous injuries and died. The Police, Arvapally P.S., registered a case in Crime No.37/2008 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the respondent No.1-driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimants, i.e., petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are children and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are parents of deceased, have filed claim petition against driver, owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization.
6. The deceased was aged about 29 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was a private employee and was getting an income of Rs.5,000/- per month and petitioners lost the support of the deceased.
7. The respondent No.1-driver and respondent No.2-owner of offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the Tractor was not having valid LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015 3 driving license and further, the insured and insurer of auto are necessary parties and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant and excess and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the MACT framed the following issues:
i) Whether the deceased Geesa Shankar died in the motor vehicle accident, if so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-24-W-0515 - AP-24-W-0516 ?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom it should be collected ?
iii) To what relief ?
9. In order to substantiate the case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. To disprove the claim of the appellant, the 3rd respondent-insurance company did not examine any witnesses, but marked insurance policy is marked as Ex.B1 on its behalf.
10. The MACT after considering the evidence placed on record, came to a conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015 4 negligent driving of the Tractor-Trailer bearing registration Nos. AP-24-W-0515 & AP-24-W-0516 and awarded compensation of Rs.4,01,0000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing of amount. The driver, owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance company i.e., respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants contended that MACT had wrongly awarded the compensation without appreciating the oral, documentary evidence and the income of the deceased. He contended that the MACT ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd as the dependants are five in number. He further contended that MACT had failed to take future prospects into consideration and granted less compensation. He further contended that MACT had wrongly awarded the compensation towards consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses etc. and finally prayed to allow the appeal.
12. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions:
LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015 5
i) Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1;
ii) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2;
iii) Jyoti and others vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., and others 3
13. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the insurance company would submit that on due consideration of the evidence and material placed, the Hon'ble MACT has rightly awarded the compensation and the grounds raised by the appellants are untenable and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Consideration :
14. With regard to issue no.1, on consideration of evidence and the material placed on record, the MACT had come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting in death of the deceased.
1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 2023 ACJ 341 LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015 6
15. With regard to the income of the deceased, the MACT had taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-, which is in dispute in the present appeal.
16. In Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Rayal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs-13 & 14 observed that, "13...........appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as coolie and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of the accident.
......
The appellant was working as a coolie and, therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant.
"14..........the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time."
17. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa (supra), 4 (2011) 13 SCC 236 LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015 7 this Court is of the considered view that monthly income of the claimant can be taken as Rs.4,500/-, even in the absence of any evidence.
18. In so far as the deduction towards personal and living expenses is concerned, the deceased was married and he is survived by wife, two children and parents, i.e., in total five dependents. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) at paragraph-30, the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-forth where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. In the present case, total dependents of the deceased are five. However, it is informed that during the pendency of appeal, mother of the deceased expired, thereby the number of dependents of deceased is now reduced to four. The Tribunal did not treat the father of the deceased as dependent, despite he being aged 74 years. In considered view of this Court, father of the deceased is also be treated as dependent and thus, total dependents of the deceased comes to four. Therefore, as per the LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015 8 decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has to be one-fourth (1/4th).
Conclusion:
19. In considered view of this Court, monthly earnings of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/- and annual earnings comes to Rs.54,000/-. Thus, compensation towards loss of earnings is enhanced from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.54,000/-. Since the total dependents of the deceased are four, one-fourth of the income of the deceased requires to be deducted towards his personal expenses.
20. In Pranay Sethi (supra), 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 40% of established income should be warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.
21. With regard to multiplier, as per the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and Jyothi (supra), the multiplier is '17' for the age groups of 26 to 30. In the instant appeal, though the MACT observed that the age of the deceased LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015 9 was 30 years at the time of accident, ultimately the MACT has taken the multiplier '16' treating that age of the deceased could be between thirty two to thirty five years without recording any reasons. Therefore, the MACT ought to have considered the age of the deceased as 30 years and thus, should have applied multiplier of '17' instead of '16'.
22. In view of the above, the appellants are entitled for the following compensation:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Loss of dependency Rs.9,18,000/-(Rs.4,500/- x 12 x
17) minus one-fourth i.e.,
Rs.2,29,500/-, which comes to
Rs.6,88,500/-
2 Future prospects Rs.2,75,400/- (i.e., 40% of
annual income i.e., Rs.6,88,500/-)
3 Total loss of dependency Rs.6,88,500/- + Rs.2,75,400 =
Rs.9,63,900/-
4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
5 Loss of wife consortium Rs. 40,000/-
6 Loss of parental Rs. 80,000/-
consortium to two children
(Rs.40,000/- each)
7 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
8 Total compensation to be Rs.11,13,900/-
paid
LNA,J
MACMA No.16 of 2015
10
23. The Appeal is allowed enhancing compensation from
Rs.4,01,000/- to Rs.11,13,900/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The respondent no.1-Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
24. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
[[ ____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015 11 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.16 OF 2015 Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm