Telangana High Court
Basireddy Sangeetha And 4 Others vs Krishna Kumar And Another on 14 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
No.1489 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the Order and Decree dated 13.09.2017 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.454 of 2014 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge at Nalgonda, (for short "the learned Tribunal"), appellants-petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the learned Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioners, who are the wife, children and parents of the deceased Basireddy Malla Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident. As per the petitioners, on 04.06.2014, the deceased as rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP-24/AK/6558 along with his relative Goverdhan Reddy as pillion rider were returning to their 2 village Choudampally at normal speed by following the traffic rules. In the mid way, when they reached APSP Battalion located in the outskirts of Anneparthy of Addanki-Narkepally Highway, in the meantime, at about 9.45pm, one container lorry (truck) bearing No.HR-38-Q-8502 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came from back side of their motorcycle and hit their motorcycle. Due to the said accident, both the deceased and pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. Based on a complaint, the police, Nalgonda registered a case in Crime No.151 of 2014 and laid charge sheet under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the lorry i.e. respondent No.1. It is further contended that the deceased was aged 35 years and hale and healthy at the time of accident. Being an agriculturist, he was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and used to contribute the same for the maintenance and welfare of the petitioners, who completely depended on him. On account of the untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners have lost their source of income. Hence, they have claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-
from the respondents as the deceased died due to the negligent driving of driver of lorry.
04. Respondent No.1-owner of the lorry remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.
3
05. Respondent No.2-Insurance company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition, age, avocation, income and manner of the accident. It is further contended that the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and there was contributory negligence of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the offending lorry do not have driving license and there was violation of policy conditions and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
06. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled:
i. Whether the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the container lorry (truck) bearing No.HR-38-Q-8502? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? iii. Whether the age, occupation and income claimed by the petitioners are true?
iv. To what relief?
07. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance policy was marked with consent.4
08. Considering the claim of petitioners and counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation of Rs.8,45,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and also subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
09. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, appellants-
petitioners have filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
10. Heard Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for appellants-petitioners and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance company. Perused the material available on record.
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants- claimants is that though the claimants have proved the case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A8, the learned Tribunal without considering the same has taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. Further, the learned Tribunal has 5 erroneously deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses instead of 1/4th of the income and also the appropriate multiplier to the age of the deceased is '16' and not '15'. Therefore, the appellants prayed to award just and reasonable compensation.
12. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the Insurance company argued that the learned Tribunal after considering all the aspects has awarded reasonable compensation, for which, interference of this Court is unwarranted.
13. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether appellants-petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation amount in addition to the compensation amount granted vide impugned Order and Decree dated 13.09.2017 by the learned Tribunal?
P O I N T:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
15. PW1 who is the wife of the deceased in her chief examination reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident and death of deceased in the said accident. In support of their case, the claimants have got examined PWs 2 and 3. PW2, who was an eye witness to the accident in his chief examination 6 deposed that he along with three others were proceeding on two motorcycles along with the deceased who was rider another motorcycle. He further deposed about the manner of accident, which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending lorry and death of deceased in the said accident. PW3, who is the mother of deceased in her chief examination deposed that her son used to do agriculture by cultivate his agricultural land and was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. Though PWs 1 to 3 were cross examined at length, nothing worth was elicited to dis- believe their evidence.
16. Apart from oral evidence, claimants have also relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that based on a complaint, the Police, Nalgonda Rural have registered a case in Crime No.151 of 2014 under Section 304-A of IPC and took up investigation and laid charge sheet under Ex.A5 against the driver of the lorry. Ex.A2-Inquest report discloses that the deceased is an agriculturist and died in the road traffic accident. Ex.A3-Postmortem Examination Report discloses that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. Ex.A6 is the driving license of the deceased. Ex.A7 and A8-Pattedar pass books disclose that certain agricultural lands stand in the name of the deceased. The copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 and the said policy was valid 7 and in force as on the date of accident. There is no dispute regarding the manner of accident and death of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Tribunal answered issue No.1 in favour of the claim petitioners holding that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry.
17. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
18. Now, coming to the compensation amount, as per the claim petitioners, the deceased was getting an income of Rs.15,000/- per month. Admittedly, there is no income proof filed by the claim petitioners. Considering Exs.A7 and A8 filed by the petitioners that the deceased was an agriculturist, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and awarded the compensation and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding.
19. The learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 8 Pranay Sethi & others 1 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court had fixed reasonable figures on conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. In all, it comes to Rs.70,000/- (which shall carry 10% enhancement for every three years). This Court, by relying upon the said decision, reduces the amount awarded under non- pecuniary heads from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.70,000/- (which carries 10% enhancement for every three years).
20. While calculating the loss of source of dependency, the learned Tribunal has not taken the future prospects. As the deceased was self-employed and aged below 40 years, 40% future prospects have to be taken into consideration, in view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited supra) 40% i.e., Rs.2,400/- towards future prospects can duly be added to the income of the deceased, which comes to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-). Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.8,400x12). Since there are five dependents, after deducting 1/4th of the income (Rs.25,200/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport 1 (2017 ACJ 2700) 9 Corporation 2, the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.1,00,800/- minus Rs.25,200/-).
21. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 35 years at the time of fatal accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma (supra), the appropriate multiplier is '16'. Thus, applying the multiplier '16' to the annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.75,600/-, the total 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.75,600/- x
16). That apart, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads and further, considering the fact that appellant Nos.2 and 3, being the minor children of deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- to each of them i.e. total Rs.80,000/- 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 petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,66,600/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred only).
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal at 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 10 Rs.8,45,000/- is at lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.13,66,600/-.
23. Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 4.
24. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,45,000/- to Rs.13,66,600/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum on entire compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. Time to deposit the compensation is one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 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.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 14-JUNE-2024 gvl 4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35