Telangana High Court
M Nagamani/Mani And 2 Others vs Ravi And Another on 5 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1068 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter be referred as 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.1943 of 2013, dated 25.01.2018, the claimants filed the present Appeal seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the deceased-Sri M.Sudhakar and who is also representing petitioner Nos.2 & 3 as they being minors, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1983 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest for the death of her husband-Sri M.Sudhakar (hereinafter be referred as the deceased) in a road accident. It is stated by her that on 09.10.2011, at about 3.10 P.M., when the deceased was crossing the road from Mahaboob Mansion gunj, Malakpet, at that time, one Auto bearing No.AP 11X 9549 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries all over the body and 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.1068 of 2018 died while undergoing treatment. Based on a complaint, P.S., Chaderghat, registered a case in Crime No.323 of 2011 under Section 337 IPC. It is submitted by the petitioner No.1 that the deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident and used to work as Hamali and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month and he was the sole bread winner of the family. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their bread winner and it is getting very difficult for them to eke out their livelihood and hence, filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest which is payable by both the respondents jointly and severally.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, manner of accident and involvement of crime vehicle. It also stated that as the driver of the Auto was not holding valid driving license and that Respondent No.1 handed over the Auto to the driver knowing pretty well that he does not possess valid driving license and that the interest claimed by the petitioners is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on her behalf. Respondent 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.1068 of 2018 No.1 remained exparte. On behalf of Respondent No.2, RWs1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.
6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents marked on both sides, had partly allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.8,41,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization which is payable by Respondent No.1 within one month from the date of order. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against Respondent No.2.
7. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants/claim petitioners filed the present Appeal.
8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing counsel for Respondent No.2- Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellants is that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the appellants. He contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed liability upon Insurance company also. He also contended that the Tribunal granted very low amount towards consortium and funeral expenses and awarded less rate of interest and prays to allow the 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.1068 of 2018 appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents available on record, awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now the point that arise for determination is, Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
POINT:
12. This Court has perused the entire record and also the evidence adduced on either side. Ex.A1- Copy of FIR shows that based on the complaint given by PW1, who is the wife of the deceased, P.S., Chaderghat registered a case in Crime No.323 of 2011 under Section 337 IPC and conducted investigation and filed Ex.A3- charge sheet against the driver of the auto. Ex.A4- Copy of Post Mortem Examination Report shows that the deceased died due to Head Injury. RW1, who is a Senior Legal Executive of Respondent No.2 company, stated in his evidence that one Ramavanth Mothilal was the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 11 X 9549 on the date of accident and he was not holding any valid driving license. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the Auto, 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.1068 of 2018 having knowledge about the fact that the driver of the auto do not possess any valid driving license, had negligently handed over the said Auto to him and contravened the provisions of M.V.Act which shows that he is alone liable to pay the compensation for the rash and negligent driving of the said Auto which resulted in an accident. Also, as per the MVI report under Ex.A5, the said Auto was plying on the road without valid permit and fitness certificate. Exs.B4 & B5 also supports the said contention. Therefore, it can be concluded that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 11X 9549 and the driver of the auto was not holding any valid driving license which was established by Respondent No.2 through evidence of RWs 2 and 3 and Exs.B3 and B5. Moreover, the owner of the Auto has not preferred any appeal stating that the driver of his vehicle was not responsible for the accident. Hence, the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence and documents adduced by both sides had come to the conclusion that the owner of the Auto i.e., Respondent No.1 in O.P. is liable to pay compensation to the appellants.
13. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as Hamali. However, no proof in that regard has been produced. 6
MGP,J MACMA.No.1068 of 2018 Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2011 and as the deceased was 28 years old, this Court is of the view that the income of Rs.4,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal is meagre and needs enhancement. Therefore, considering the prevailing minimum rate of wages, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, if 40% is added towards future prospects then the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/-. Since the age of the deceased was 28 years at the time of accident, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, the net monthly contribution to the family comes to Rs.4,200/- and as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2, the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Thus, applying the multiplier '17', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,56,800/-. In addition to that, the claimants are awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and Rs.10,000/-for funeral expenses. Further, considering the fact that the appellant Nos.2 & 3 being the minor children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.1068 of 2018 a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,16,800/.
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.8,41,600/- to Rs.10,16,800/- to be paid by Respondent No.1. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.05.02.2024 ysk 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.1068 of 2018 HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.1068 OF 2018 Dt.05.02.2024 ysk