Telangana High Court
Manju Sanjay Singh vs Basiruddin Jamaluddin Ansari on 11 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3407 of 2019 and 417 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao) These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, since M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.417 of 2021 filed by the petitioners/claimants are directed against the very same order and decree dated 15.04.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.384 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short 'the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.06.2014 at about 2.30 p.m., the deceased Sanjay Singh was driving a lorry bearing No.MH-04-GC-8549 from Aurangabad to Hyderabad and when he reached near Budera Village, Munipally Mandal on NH-65 Road, the lorry driver bearing No. GJ-11Y-7200 came on the wrong side at a high speed in a rash and negligent 2 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021 manner and dashed against the vehicle driven by the deceased from the opposite direction. Resultantly, the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the said injuries while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital. The Police Munipally registered a case in Cr.No.60 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month through transport business and Rs.10,000/- per month as a driver. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition.
5. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, RW-1 was examined and marked Ex.B-1-Copy of the Insurance Policy.
6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred 3 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.31,94,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the same, M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 is filed by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.417 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that though the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month as per Exs.A-6 to A.10, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the deceased's income at Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, The Tribunal has failed to evaluate the oral evidence of PW-3 and the documentary evidence of Ex-A9, which showed that the damages incurred to the vehicle was beyond repair and the same had to be considered as a total loss. The Tribunal has not awarded just compensation under other heads and therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable.
4 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company has contended that there is no evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. The sole oral evidence of PW-3 has been relied upon to claim that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, with regard to damages to the vehicle, the evidence of PW-3 discloses that the vehicle bearing No.MH-04- GC-8549 was completely damaged in the accident and that PW- 3 inspected the same and gave damage certificate (Ex.A-9). But, the petitioners did not place any estimation of damage of the said vehicle. Considering the said evidence, the Tribunal has rightly declined to grant damages to the vehicle in question. The Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and passed the impugned order and the same needs no interference by this Court.
10. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal, having framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and having considered the evidence of PW.2, an eye witness to the accident, coupled with the documentary 5 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021 evidence i.e., Ex.A-1-FIR and Ex.A-2-charge-sheet, rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and has answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, based on the evidence of PW-3, the petitioners stated that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month cumulatively, by way of transport business and also by working as a driver. However, there is no documentary evidence to prove the same. The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-. Considering the available evidence on record, the Tribunal has fixed the age of the deceased at 40 years. Since the deceased was self-employed, the petitioners are entitled to 40% of the deceased's income towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. 6 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021 Pranay Sethi 1. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 28,000/- (Rs. 20,000 + 40%). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 3,36,000/-. The deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased has been clearly laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the instant case, the Tribunal erred by wrongly deducting 1/5th of the income, when it ought to have deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra) as the dependants are five in number. Hence, the deduction towards the personal expenditure of the deceased is liable to be fixed at 1/4th of the deceased's income. Accordingly, 1/4th of the annual income is deducted which comes to Rs. 2,52,000/- (Rs.3,36,000 - Rs.84,000). As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '15', as the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of the accident. Adopting multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 37,80,000/-.
1 2017 (16) SCC 680.
22009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021
12. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), petitioner No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- +10%+10%) towards loss of spousal consortium. The petitioners are also entitled to a sum of Rs. 36,300/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, since petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are minors, this Court grants a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium and petitioner Nos. 4 and 5, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards the loss of filial consortium, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram 3.
13. With regards to the damages to the vehicle, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the same. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has opposed the same, contending that there is no proper assessment of the damage and that the extent of the damage to the vehicle has not been quantified. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly disregarded Ex.A9 3 2018 18 SCC 130 8 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021 Vehicle Damage Certificate and rejected the petitioners' claim under the head of vehicle damage.
14. A perusal of Ex.A9 discloses that extensive damages have occurred to the vehicle in question and that the vehicle is lying at the workshop unrepaired. However, the evidence does not state the vehicle's value. A perusal of Ex.A8 shows that the vehicle's permit is valid from 21.09.2013 to 20.09.2018, which indicates that the vehicle is relatively old and in a damaged condition. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- under the head of vehicle damages.
15. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to compensation as indicated below:
S.No. Particulars Amount
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 37,80,000/-
2. Loss of spousal Rs. 48,400/-
consortium to the 1st
petitioner
(Rs.40,000/-
+10%+10%)
3. Conventional Heads Rs. 36,300/-
(Funeral Expenses
and Loss of Estate)
(Rs.15,000/-
+Rs.15,000/-
+10%+10%)
9 SP,J & RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021
4. Loss of Parental Rs. 80,000/-
Consortium
4. Loss of Filial Rs. 80,000/-
Consortium
5. Damages to the Rs. 2,50,000/-
Vehicle
Total Compensation Rs. 42,74,700/-
16. With regard to the interest, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However, this Court grants interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount, from the date of the petition to the date of realization.
17. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.417 of 2021 is partly allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.31,94,000/- to Rs.42,74,700/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred Only) with interest @ 7.5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest, after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted 10 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021 to withdraw the same in the same manner and ratio as apportioned by the Tribunal.
M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019
18. In view of the above findings in M.A.C.M.A.No.417 of 2021, this M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
________________ SUJOY PAUL, J _____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J June 2024 Prv