Telangana High Court
P Laxmaiah And 2 Others vs M Rama Krishna And Another on 2 August, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1205 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- VII Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short, the Tribunal), in M.A.T.O.P.No.186 of 2016, dated 08.02.2018, the claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is the husband and the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the sons of Smt.Pokala Rama (hereinafter be referred as 'the deceased') filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.08.2015. As per the petitioners, on the fateful day, the deceased along with her husband proceeded to Maddirala Village, Nutankal Mandal, Nalgonda District, on their Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP-20P-9679 and when they reached near Patarlapadu Crossroads, one Maruti Swift Car bearing No.AP-05BK-8787, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed their motor cycle. As 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.1205 of 2018 a result, both of them fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Nalgonda 'X' roads, Malakpet, Hyderabad for medical treatment and while undergoing treatment, Smt.Pokala Rama succumbed to injuries on 23.08.2015. It is further contended that the Police of Tirumalayapalem Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.177 of 2015 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. It is further contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Swift Car bearing No.AP-20P-9679 and hence filed claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 & 2, being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the subject Maruti Swift Car, filed his counter and denied the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased and further contended that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company, as such, respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim against him.
5. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age, avocation, earnings and contended that there is no involvement of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident and the driver of 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.1205 of 2018 the crime vehicle do not possess a valid driving license as on the date of accident and hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. It is also contended that the claim petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the accident took place on 21.08.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-05BK-8787 by its rider?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but however, Ex.B1- Copy of Insurance policy of the crime vehicle was marked.
8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, partly allowed the claim petition of the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.6,73,589/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.1205 of 2018 deposit. Not satisfied with the said compensation amount, the present appeal by the claim petitioners.
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for Appellants/claim petitioners is that though the claim petitioners have prove their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon documents under Exs.A1 to A10, but the learned Tribunal without considering the same in proper perspective had awarded meagre amounts and further, the learned Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased as she was the owner of the lorry and therefore, prays the Court to award reasonable compensation by allowing the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/ Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
12. Now the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any irregularity?
5
MGP,J MACMA.No.1205 of 2018 POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed by both parties. PW1 is the husband of the deceased who deposed about the manner of accident and death of the deceased. PW2, who is Sweet Shop Owner, deposed in his evidence that he knew PW1 and the deceased for the last five years and during her life time, she used to do Milk vending business of her own and he used to purchase 40 to 50 litres of Milk per day from her and he used to pay Rs.50/- per litre. PW2 in his cross-examination stated that there is no documentary proof to show that he used to purchase 40 to 50 litres of Milk per day and also there is no accounts of payment nor receipts of the amounts paid to the deceased.
14. PW3, who is a Doctor, deposed in his evidence that he is working as RMO in Yashoda Hospital and on the date of accident i.e., on 22.08.2015, the deceased was admitted as inpatienet in their hospital on 22.08.2015 and while she was undergoing treatment, she succumbed to the injuries on 24.08.2015 and the cause of death was due to severe head injury. In the cross- examination, he stated that he has not treated the patient personally and as per Ex.A8, the relatives of the patient paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- out of Rs.1,59,460/-
6
MGP,J MACMA.No.1205 of 2018
15. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute regarding the manner of the accident and death of the deceased. A perusal of Ex.A1 discloses that Police of Tirumalayapalem Police Station registered a case in Crime No.177 of 2015 under Section 337 IPC, took up investigation and laid charge sheet against the driver of the Maruti Swift Car under Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the post-mortem examination report which discloses that the cause of death was due to Head injury. Ex.A4 is the inquest report. Ex.A5 are the Medical Bills. Ex.A6 is the Spiral City Scan bill. Ex.A7 are the Medical prescriptions. Ex.A8 is the final bill of Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A9 is the Certificate issued by Mohan Sweets Home, Khammam. Ex.A10 is the Identity card of Lorry owners Association, Khammam. The Exhibits under A5 to A8 shows the treatment undergone by the deceased prior to the death.
16. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents filed, has taken net monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/ and deducted 1/3rd income towards personal expenses and applied relevant multiplier and awarded compensation of Rs.6,73,589/-.
17. It is pertinent to state that though the income of the deceased as Milk Vendor is not proved through the evidence of PW2, but the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.1205 of 2018 deceased @ Rs.4,500/-. This Court, by considering the avocation of the deceased as Milk Vendor and also Member of Lorry Owners Association as per Ex.A10, is hereby inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.6,500/- by relying upon the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court reported in Syed Sadiq & Others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited 1 and calculate the compensation as under:-
18. The age of the deceased is taken as 40 years as per post- mortem examination report. If 25% is added towards her established income as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.Pranay Sethi [2017 16 SCC 680], then the future loss of income comes to Rs.8,125/- per month. If 1/3rd is deduced towards her contribution to the family, then the net monthly income comes to Rs.5,417/- and the annual comes to Rs.65,004/- and after applying the relevant multiplier '15', then the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,75,060/-. This Court by relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 2700), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had fixed reasonable figures on conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively which in all comes to 1 (2014) 2 SCC 735 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.1205 of 2018 Rs.70,000/- (which shall carry 10% enhancement for every three years), is inclined to award a sum of Rs.77,000/- towards non- pecuniary damages. Hence, the total compensation, to which the appellants are entitled, comes to Rs.10,52,060/-.
19. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs.6,73,589/- to Rs.10,52,060/- which carries interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such payment made, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.02.08.2024.
ysk