HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.824 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy for the appellant/claimant and Sri. I.Ravinder Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant dissatisfied with the award passed by Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.405 of 2012, dated 01.11.2013 and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 25.03.2012, the deceased i.e., Sanjeev Kumar along with his friend-Pramod after darshan at Yedupayala temple, were returning on his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-23-F-8068 and when they reached near Gadipeddapur village, a Tempo Trax Toofan bearing registration No.AP-2X-4910 came in opposite direction at high speed and dashed the motorcycle, due to which, the deceased received grievous injuries LNA,J MACMA No.824 of 2015 2 and died on the spot. The concerned Police registered a case and investigated into the case.
5. The claimants, i.e., appellant No.1 herein is the mother and respondent No.5 herein is the wife of the deceased, have filed claim petition against owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
6. The claimants claimed that 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.10,000/- per month and the claimants lost the support of the deceased.
7. The respondent No.1-owner of offending vehicle filed counter denying all the allegations in the claim petition and contended that the rider of the motorcycle himself drove the motorcycle rashly and negligently and hit the Tempo Trax. He further stated that driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving license and the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and, therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation.
LNA,J MACMA No.824 of 2015 3
8. The respondent no.2-insurance company in his counter denied all the allegations, i.e., the manner of occurrence of accident, the age and income of the deceased and disputed the claim of claimants.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the MACT framed the following issues:
i) Whether the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?
ii) Whether the deceased died in the said accident and the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so at what at quantum and from whom?
iii) To what relief ?
10. In order to substantiate the case, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The respondent No.1 did not produce any documentary or oral evidence. To disprove the claim of the claimants, the 2nd respondent-insurance company did not examine any witnesses, however, certified copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 on its behalf.
LNA,J MACMA No.824 of 2015 4
11. The MACT, on appreciation of evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax Toofan bearing registration No.AP-2X-4910 and awarded compensation of Rs.5,64,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Out of Rs.5,64,000/-, the MACT below awarded a sum of Rs.4,64,000/- to wife and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to mother of the deceased. The owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance company i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
12. During the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant contended that the MACT ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month as he was an employee in a Pharma company even in the absence of any evidence, but, awarded only Rs.4,000/- per month. He submitted that the Court below ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.6.00 lakhs as claimed by the claimants in the claim petition.
13. He further submitted that MACT erred in apportionment of the compensation payable to appellant and that appellant alone is LNA,J MACMA No.824 of 2015 5 entitled for entire compensation. He also contended that MACT had wrongly awarded the compensation towards consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses etc., and also rate of interest and finally prayed to allow the appeal. He further submitted that MACT erred in not awarding of 40% 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 support of the contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2 and Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another 3.
14. 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 on which present appeal is filed are untenable and no case is made out to interfere 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2023) 3 SCC 439 LNA,J MACMA No.824 of 2015 6 with the award passed by the MACT and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Consideration :
15. With regard to issue no.1, on appreciation of evidence and 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.
16. With regard to the monthly income of the deceased, the MACT had taken the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, which is in dispute in the present appeal.
17. 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 4 (2011) 13 SCC 236 LNA,J MACMA No.824 of 2015 7 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."
18. 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), this Court is of the considered view that monthly earnings of the claimant can be taken as Rs.4,500/-, even in the absence of any evidence.
Conclusion:
19. In view of the above decision, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/- and the annual loss of earnings of the deceased comes to Rs.54,000/-. Thus, compensation towards loss of earnings is enhanced from Rs.48,000/- to Rs.54,000/- per annum.
20. In Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased self employed or on a fixed LNA,J MACMA No.824 of 2015 8 salary an addition of 40% of established income should be warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Since the dependents of the deceased are two, one-third of the income towards personal and living expenses to be deducted as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) at paragraph-30.
21. With regard to the 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, as the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident was 29 years, the appropriate multiplier is '17'.
22. With regard to the apportionment of compensation, in Smt. Vimla v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma and others 5 , the Hon'ble Gwalior Bench held that widow wife and mother of the deceased are entitled to 70% and 30% of the awarded compensation, respectively. Hon'ble Gwalior Bench held as under:
"17. As regards apportionment is concerned, it will dependant on facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the widow who is examined as AW 3 has specifically stated that she 5 2006 SCC Online MP 223 LNA,J MACMA No.824 of 2015 9 was living with her husband at the time of the accident and her in-laws and other members were residing separately. This evidence is not rebutted by other claimants. Moreover, the remaining life span of the widow is more than that of a mother. Whenever a claim for compensation is filed by the parents alone the lesser multiplier is applicable. Considering this fact, we hold that the compensation be apportioned between the widow and the mother of the deceased as 70% and 30% i.e. widow shall be entitled to compensation to 70% and 30% amount of the award shall be payable to the mother of the deceased."
23. Insofar as the apportionment of the compensation concerned, this Court is in respectful agreement with the decision of the Gwalior Bench of M.P. in Vimla (supra), and accordingly, wife of the deceased i.e., respondent no.5 herein is entitled to 70% of the compensation amount and the mother of the deceased i.e., appellant is entitled to balance 30% of the compensation amount.
24. 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-third i.e., Rs.3,06,000/-, which comes to Rs.6,12,000/-
2 Future prospects Rs.2,44,800/- (i.e., 40% of annual income i.e., Rs.6,12,000/-) 3 Total loss of dependency Rs.6,12,000/- + Rs.2,44,800 = Rs.8,56,800/-
4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
LNA,J
MACMA No.824 of 2015
10
5 Loss of consortium to two Rs. 80,000/-
claimants (40,000/- x 2)
6 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
7 Total compensation to be paid Rs.9,66,800/-
25. The Appeal is allowed partly and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.5,65,000/- to Rs.9,66,800/- with interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum, subject to payment of deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The respondent no.2- Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
26. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
[[ ____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm LNA,J MACMA No.824 of 2015 11 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.824 OF 2015 Date: 29 .09.2023 Ktm/kkm