Telangana High Court
Neelam Lalitha vs G Pavalakodi on 13 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.846 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter be referred as 'the Tribunal'), in O.P.No.388 of 2013, dated 27.01.2017, the claimants in O.P filed the present appeal seeking 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, petitioner no.1, who is the wife and petitioner nos.2 & 3, who are the children of the deceased- Neelam Papaiah, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 18% per annum on account of death of the deceased- Neelam Papaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 04.03.2013. As per the claim petitioners, on 04.03.2013, as per the instructions of the employer of the deceased, the deceased in the capacity of cleaner and his driver-Venkanna were proceeding to Miryalguda in DCM Lorry bearing No.AP-07/TA-9680 and when they reached near Anjinipuram village, in the meantime, a lorry bearing No.TN-52-D- 6070 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the lorry. As a result, the deceased along with drvier 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.846 of 2018 and other inmates of DCM sustained injuries and the deceased died on 07.03.2013 while undergoing treatment in Titan Hospital, Hyderabad. Based on a complaint, Police of Pidiguralla Police station registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2013 against the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-52/D-6070 for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and took up investigation. It is further contended by the claim petitioners that the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 26 years and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as cleaner and used to contribute the same for the welfare and maintenance of his family members and due to death of the deceased, the petitioners became destitute and hence claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads against Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 did not contest the case and remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age, avocation, manner of accident, employment of the deceased as cleaner, health condition of the deceased and also denied the driving license of the driver of the crime vehicle and further contended that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
3
MGP,J MACMA.No.846 of 2018
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the deceased by name Neelam Papaiah died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.TN52/D-6070?
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation amount? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1 and also got examined PWs 2 & 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7.
On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1- Copy of insurance policy was marked.
7. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.6,67,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the claim petitioners preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard the submission of Smt.Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for appellants/claim petitioners and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2-Insurance company-. Perused the record.
4
MGP,J MACMA.No.846 of 2018
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the appellants have proved their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon Exs.A1 to A7, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had awarded meagre amount towards compensation and therefore prayed to enhance the same.
10. 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.
11. Now, the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
POINT:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed by both sides. Claim petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and 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 a lorry driver and eye witness to the accident, deposed that on 04.03.2013 in the morning hours, he boarded a DCM Van bearing No.AP-07TA-9680 at Piduguralla in order to go to Miryalguda and the deceased- 5
MGP,J MACMA.No.846 of 2018 Neelam Papaiah along with his driver-Chinthapally Venkanna who belong to his village, have also boarded the same DCM van. On the way at about 9.30 AM, when the DCM van reached Anjinipuram Village of Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur district and was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road, at that time, one lorry bearing No.TN-52/D-6070 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the DCM van due to which himself, the deceased-Neelam Papaiah and Chinthapally Venkanna and other inmates of DCM van received grievous injuries. Immediately, all of them were shifted to Government Hospital, Gurajala in '108' Ambulance. As the condition of the deceased was very serious, he was referred to Hyderabad and later came to know that he died while undergoing treatment at Hyderabad. He also stated that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-52/D-6070 and police have recorded his statement. Though PWs 1 & 2 are cross-examined at length, nothing worthy was elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
13. PW3, who is working as C.R.M.O in Titan Hospital, deposed in his evidence that on 05.03.2013 the deceased was admitted in their hospital and based on the documents under Ex.A6 and Ex.A7, the deceased was discharged on 07.03.2013 and while 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.846 of 2018 undergoing treatment, he died. In the cross-examination, he stated that he has no personal knowledge about Exs.A6 & A7. Only by seeing the Tital Hospital letter head and stamp impression, he is deposing that Sri N.Papaiah might have taken treatment in Titan Hospital and he has no personal acquaintance with Dr.Ali Zaheer, who signed Exs.A6 & A7 and he cannot identify his signature.
14. It is pertinent to state that the learned Tribunal had discarded the evidence of PW3 and had not awarded the entire amount towards medical expenses and awarded only an amount of Rs.30,000/- This Court is of the considered opinion that Ex.A6- Bunch of medical bills appears to be original documents. Admittedly, the deceased has undergone treatment in Titan Hospital. Therefore, this Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.1,38,260/- towards medical expenses which are marked under Ex.A6. Further, the learned Tribunal had answered issue no.1 in favour of the petitioners stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN52/D-6070 for which interference of this Court is not necessary.
15. Now, coming to the compensation awarded, the learned Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased @ 4,500/- as no income proof was filed. However, considering the fact that even as 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.846 of 2018 per Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A5-charge sheet, the deceased was working as a cleaner, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-. As the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident, 40% is added towards future prospects to the established income of the deceased as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1. Hence, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/-. As the number of dependants are three in number, if 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then the net monthly income comes to Rs.4,667/-. By applying the relevant multiplier of '17' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2,the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,52,068/-. The appellants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.1,38,260/- towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.77,000/- towards conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon) as prescribed in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (referred supra). Apart from that, considering the fact that the appellant Nos.2 & 3 being the minor children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental consortium as per the 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.846 of 2018 decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.12,47,328 /-.
16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,67,000/- to Rs.12,47,328/-. The appellants are directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation. The Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced compensation along with interest at 7.5% p.a. 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 same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Dt.13.02.2024 ysk 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130