Telangana High Court
Smt. Zareena Begum And 2 Others vs Anju Reddy And Another on 5 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.229 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal), passed in O.P.No.433 of 2008, dated 08.12.2019, the Appellants/claim petitioners have filed the present appeal 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 claim petitioners have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of death of Sri Mahboob Khan, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 01.12.2007. As per the claim petitioners, who are the wife and parents of the deceased, when the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-28X-5215 from N.S.Kunta to Hassan Nagar, Hyderabad and when he reached near Danamma Jhopdi Tadba, Hyderabad at about 10.00 PM, a lorry bearing No.KA-39- 4808, which was being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased and ran over him. As a result, the deceased died instantaneously. Based on a complaint, Bahadurpura Police registered a case in 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.229 of 2017 Crime No.275 of 2007 against the driver of the crime lorry. As per the claim petitioners, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 32 years and used to work as Electrical Supervisor with M/s. AH Electricals and Engineers and Consultants and used to draw salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their earnings as they are dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. As a result, they have claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition including, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry and causing accident and further contended that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
i. Whether the accident was occurred on 01.12.2007 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.KA-39-4808 and in the said accident, the deceased died due to injuries received by him in that accident?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation and if so, from whom and to what amount?
iii. To what relief?3
MGP,J MACMA.No.229 of 2017
6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW1, got examined PWs.2 & 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 to X4. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents filed on both sides, had awarded an amount of Rs.4,23,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal by the appellants/claim petitioners.
8. Heard the submission made by Sri V.Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.V.Durga, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the entire record.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners is that though the claim petitioners have prove the case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also relying upon relevant documents under Exs.A1 to A8 and also Exs.X1 to X4, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had erroneously awarded a meagre compensation and hence prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
4
MGP,J MACMA.No.229 of 2017
10. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation. In fact, the learned Tribunal had taken the multiplier '17' instead of '16' and awarded huge amount and therefore, interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now the point that emerges for consideration is Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
12. A perusal of the entire evidence available on record discloses that the 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, had reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident. As she is not an eye witness to the accident, she got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident. PW2 in his evidence has stated about the manner of accident and also stated that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-39-4808 which came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle and ran over him. The evidence of PW2 is corroborated with the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Tribunal, considering the evidence of PWs 1 & 2, coupled with FIR and charge sheet, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.229 of 2017 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-39-4808.
13. Now, coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as per the claim petitioners, the deceased was aged 32 years and was working as Electrical Supervisor with M/s. AH Electricals Engineers and Consultants and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have relied upon Ex.A6-Salary Certificate issued by the Proprietor of A.H.Electricals wherein, the salary of the deceased is shown as Rs.6,000/- per month. In order to prove Ex.A6, the claim petitioners have got examined PW3, who is a Project Manager working in M/s.AH Electricals Engineers and Consultants, deposed about the earnings of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the deceased was also proved. Furthermore, Ex.A3-Inquest report also discloses the occupation of the deceased. Further, Ex.A8- ITI Certificate shows the Educational qualification of the deceased. In fact, PW3, apart from his oral evidence, has also got marked Exs.X1 to X4 which are Ex.X1- Authorization letter dated 11.08.2009, Ex.X2-Copy of Electrical Contractors Licence, Ex.X3-Register of wages and Ex.X-4-Attendance Register. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the petitioners have prove their case by examining PW3 and also by relying upon the relevant documents to prove the income of the 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.229 of 2017 deceased. Therefore, Ex.A6-Salary Certificate shows that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the income awarded by the Tribunal and considers desirable to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. As the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 32 years, he is entitled for addition of 40% towards future prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1. If 1/3rd of the amount is deducted towards his personal expenses as the number of dependants are 3, then the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.67,200. Since the deceased was 32 years old at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '16' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,75,200/-/-(Rs.5,600 x 12 x 16). Apart from this, the appellants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards los of consortium, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate as ordered by the learned Tribunal. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,90,200/-.
1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.229 of 2017
14. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,23,000/- to Rs.10,90,200/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. 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