Telangana High Court
Smt. Gaini Anusha vs Gaini Chinna Ramulu on 5 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.633 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Azar Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company.
2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, vide Award dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.304 of 2018, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants.
3. The appellants are the claimants, respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that on 22.05.2018 at about 19.00 hours, under the instructions of the respondent No.1, the deceased-Gaini Pedda Shankar along with other labourers was bringing the electric cement poles from sub-station, Pothangal check LNA,J MACMA No.633 of 2023 2 post, in a tractor bearing registration No.TS-16-EA-9808 and on the way, after passing the check post of Pothangal village, when the driver of tractor was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, one RTC bus came from behind and to give side to the said bus, the driver of the tractor turned the tractor to the side in high speed, due to which the tractor turned turtle into a canal and the cement electric poles fell on the deceased, due to which he died on the spot: The Police registered a case and filed charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned.
4.1. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was aged 38 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month i.e., earning Rs.10,000/- by working as labourer under respondent No.1 and also getting agricultural income of Rs. 10,000/-.
4.2. It was further pleaded that Claimant No.1 is wife, Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children, Claimant No.5 is the mother and Claimant No.6 is sister of the deceased; and that due to death of the deceased, they lost love and affection and financial support to the family. Hence, LNA,J MACMA No.633 of 2023 3 the claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakhs from respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.
6. Respondent No.2-insurer of the offending vehicle filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was stated that the offending vehicle is registered only for agriculture and forestry purposes and should not be used for hire and reward. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was used for transportation of electric poles. Thus, there is a clear violation of terms of the insurance policy by the owner of the offending vehicle and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It further stated that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:
LNA,J MACMA No.633 of 2023 4 "(1) Whether the accident took place on 22.05.2018 at about 19.00 hours after passing of check post of Pothangal village, Pothangal village limits, Nizamabad District, under the limits of PS Kotgir, Nizamabad District, due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.TS-16-
EA-9808 by its driver causing the death of Gain Pedda Shankar @ Shankar?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation'? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. To what relief?"
8. To substantiate their case, on the claimants' side, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On the side of respondent No.2, its Legal Manager was examined as RWI and Exs.B-1-copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1. 9 The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and the material placed on record, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,64,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal further LNA,J MACMA No.633 of 2023 5 directed respondent No.1 to first satisfy the Award and later to recover the same from respondent No.2.
10. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that though the claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, which is very meager, and hence, sought this Court to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company contended that the Tribunal awarded the compensation based on the evidence and the material available on record and the same does not require any interference by this Court and sought to dismiss the appeal.
12.Consideration:-
The claimants pleaded that the deceased was working as labourer under respondent No.1 and earning Rs.10,000/- per month in addition to the agricultural income of Rs.10,000/- per month.
LNA,J MACMA No.633 of 2023 6 Respondent No.1 did not enter into witness box to rebut the pleading of the claimants that the deceased was working under him. In fact, respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. In such case, for quantifying the loss of dependency, having regard to the avocation of the deceased, the cost of living, inflation, devaluation of rupee, etc., this Court is of the considered opinion that the monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.8,000/- and accordingly, the Award of the Tribunal insofar as assessing the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be modified.
13. As regards the age of the deceased, it is evident from record that he was aged 38 years as on the date of the accident and was self-
employed. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, the claimants are entitled to future prospects by addition of 40% of the income of the deceased, i.e., 40% of Rs.8,000/- comes to Rs.3,200/-. So, if the said amount of future prospects is added to the monthly earnings of the deceased, the total earnings of the deceased would be 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA No.633 of 2023 7 Rs.11,200/- per month. As there are six dependents on the deceased, if 1/4th of Rs.11,200/- is deducted towards his personal and living expenses, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.8,400/- per month i.e., Rs.1,00,800/- per annum. Having regard the age of the deceased i.e., 38 years as on the date of the accident, by applying the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (cited supra), the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '15'. Accordingly, under the head of loss of dependency a sum of Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.1,00,800/- x 15) is awarded as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,34,000/- towards loss of dependency. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency is enhanced from Rs.11,34,000/- to Rs.15,12,000/- i.e., it is enhanced by Rs.3,78,000/-.
14. The impugned Award of the Tribunal is revisited only to the extent of granting compensation towards loss of dependency and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads holds good.
LNA,J MACMA No.633 of 2023 8
15. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion and legal position, this Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award, dated 12.01.2023, passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent of enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,64,000/- to Rs.17,42,000/-. The above compensation amount of Rs.17,42,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The appellant shall deposit the said compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount already deposited by it. Respondent No.2-insurance company is directed to first satisfy the Award and later recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 herein. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY 05.02.2024 dr