Telangana High Court
P Narsubai, Nizamabad Dist And 3 Others vs The Manager, Vijayawada And 1 Other on 2 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1148 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/ petitioners dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.479 of 2010, dated 27.09.2016 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellants herein are the petitioners and the respondent no.1 herein is the insurance company and respondent no.2 herein is the owner of the crime vehicle before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
3.1. On 12.01.2010, while the deceased-Linga Reddy along with Gangareddy and Bhaskar Reddy were travelling in his car bearing registration No.AP-25-AA-4343 from Hyderabad to Ankapur village and when they reached near Kucharam village of Toopran Mandal, one DCM van bearing registration No.AP-20-W-8889, came in LNA,J MACMA No.1148 of 2017 2 wrong side from opposite direction in high speed and dashed to the car, due to which the deceased, who drove the car, and Bhasker Reddy died on the spot and another Gangareddy died while undergoing treatment. The Police, Toopran P.S. registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2010 under Section 304-A of IPC. 3.2. The petitioner Nos.1 to 4 i.e., wife and sons and mother of the deceased respectively, have filed claim petition against respondent no.1-insurance company and the respondent no.2-
owner of the crime vehicle under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.
3.3. The claimants claimed that the deceased was aged about 40 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was an agriculturist and also working as an LIC agent and used to earn Rs.10 lakhs per annum through agriculture and Rs.3 lakhs per annum as an LIC Agent and used to contribute the same to his family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, petitioners lost their dependency and love and affection of the deceased.
4. The respondent No.1-insurance company filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and LNA,J MACMA No.1148 of 2017 3 contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of DCM van and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the car driver and they are not made parties to the claim and therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed; that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of the accident, which is clear violation of the conditions of the policy and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The respondent no.2 filed his counter denying all the material allegations made in the claim petition and inter alia, contended that there is no negligence on the part of driver of DCM van and that accident occurred due to the negligence of the car driver and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:
1. Whether the vehicle bearing No.AP-20-W-8889, involved in the accident? If so, the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of same vehicle?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what extent, against whom?
3. To what relief?
LNA,J MACMA No.1148 of 2017 4
7. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to Ex.A14 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence is adduced and no document is marked.
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and awarded total compensation of Rs.8,47,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
9. Heard learned counsel Sri T.Sujan Kumar Reddy the appellants/petitioners and Sri. Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent no.1-insurance company.
10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellants submitted that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation and the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income of the deceased; that deceased was earning Rs.10.00 lakhs per annum by doing agriculture and was also earning Rs.3.00 lakhs per annum as a LIC Agent. He submitted that even though the claimants proved the income of the deceased before the Tribunal by marking Exs.P7 & P8-LIC premium receipts; Exs.P9 to 11-statements of account; Exs.13 and 14- LNA,J MACMA No.1148 of 2017 5 pattadar pass books, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month only, which is contrary to law. He further submitted that Tribunal failed to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation and finally, prayed to award just compensation, even as claimed by the claimants.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.1-insurance company, while reiterating the averments in the counter, submitted that the Tribunal awarded proper, just compensation basing on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and prayed to dismiss the present appeal. Consideration:
12. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation and not properly assessed the income of the deceased.
13. Perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal held that though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.13 lakhs per annum, the documents filed by them did not support, substantiate the claim of income of LNA,J MACMA No.1148 of 2017 6 deceased; and that though deceased worked as LIC agent, it is not a salary based job.
14. On perusal of award passed by the Tribunal and the evidence let-in and documents filed on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is of considered view that petitioners have placed adequate evidence and documents in the form of Exs.P13 and A14- pattadar pass books, which show that the deceased owned agricultural lands earning certain amounts from the agricultural lands besides earning as LIC agent and therefore, Tribunal should have taken more pragmatic view while assessing the income of the deceased.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court consistently held that Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at providing succour to the dependents of the deceased and also held that compensation cannot be computed in mathematical precision and should adopt reasonable flexibility while determining just and fair compensation to the claimants.
16. In the light of above discussion, documents placed on record by the claimants, the avocation of the deceased, age and year of the accident, in considered opinion of this Court, notional income LNA,J MACMA No.1148 of 2017 7 of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be modified accordingly.
17. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for appellants with regard to award of compensation towards future prospects is concerned, in the decision of National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 25% of established income should be warrant, where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years. Since, the deceased was self-employed and the age of the deceased was taken as 42 years, as per Exs.A1 to A4, as on the date of the accident, an addition of 25% of the income of the deceased needs to be awarded towards future prospects.
18. Since the dependents of the deceased are four, one-fourth of the income needs to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA No.1148 of 2017 8 another 2 , at paragraph-30. However, the Tribunal erred in deducting one-third of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and the same needs to be modified as indicated above.
19. With regard to the award of consortium, as per the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), all the petitioners are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium.
Conclusion:
20. In view of the above, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income Rs.1,20,000/- per annum
(Rs.10,000/- per month)
2 Future prospects Rs.30,000/- (25% of income)
3 Total income Rs.1,50,000/-
4 Deduction towards personal Rs.37,500/- (i.e., one-fourth of total
expenses income )
5 Net Income Rs.1,12,500/- (i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- (-)
Rs.37,500/-)
6 Multiplier 14
7 Loss of dependency Rs.15,75,000/- (i.e., Rs.1,12,500/-
(Sl.No.1 to 6) x 14)
8 Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4) Rs. 1,60,000/-
2
(2009) 6 SCC 121
LNA,J
MACMA No.1148 of 2017
9
9 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
10 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation to be Rs.17,65,000/-
paid:
21. In the result, Appeal is allowed enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.8,47,000/- to Rs.17,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay the said compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The claimants are entitled to the apportionment and withdrawal of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 02.04.2024 kkm LNA,J MACMA No.1148 of 2017 10 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.1148 2017 Date: 02.04.2024 kkm