Telangana High Court
Vallapureddy Mangamma vs Gade Mar Reddy on 20 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
2911 of 2017
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated 12.04.2017 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.807 of 2014 by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal'), appellants-petitioners preferred the present Appeal praying this Court seeking enhancement of the 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:
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one Sri Vallapureddy Santhosh Reddy (hereinafter referred 2 to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 13.12.2014. Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased and petitioner No.2 is the sister.
04. According to the petitioners, on 13.12.2014 the deceased along with his relative Saketh Reddy went to Nalgonda on personal work and while returning to Thippalammagudem on the Motorcycle bearing No. AP 24 AQ 9638 at about 01:30 AM., early hours on 14.12.2014 when they reached outskirts of Thipparthy Village and Mandal one Lorry bearing No. AP 24 W 2419 was stationed by its driver on the middle of the road without any precautions, the deceased who was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road and due to focus lights could not observe the stationed lorry which was parked and dashed the said stationed lorry from its back side. Due to said accident, the deceased and pillion rider Saketh Reddy received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.229 of 2014 for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3
05. As per the petitioners, the deceased was hale and healthy and he was earning Rs.22,457/- per month and he used to contribute the same for the maintenance of his family.
06. Respondent No.1-owner filed counter denying the averments of the claim application, occurrence of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the lorry driver. It is contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and that the compensation claimed is out of proportions, excessive and exorbitant. It is further contended that in the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and total liability is on respondent No.2 exonerating respondent No.1's liability and sought for dismissal of petition against respondent No.1.
07. Respondent No.2-Insurance company filed counter denying the negligence on the part of the driver of the crime lorry and the manner of occurrence of the accident. Further contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess valid and effective driving license and 4 therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to petitioners on account of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Further contended that the deceased was also not holding any driving license and the Insurance Company has no liability to pay compensation and that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Further respondent No.2 denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The compensation claimed is out of proportions, excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
08. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled:
i. Whether the deceased died in the motor accident that occurred on 14.12.2014 at outskirts of Thipparthy Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No. AP 24 W 2419 by its driver?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
iii. To what relief?5
09. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioners got examined petitioner No.1 as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10, eyewitnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3 and employer of the deceased was examined as PW4. On behalf of respondent No.1, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On behalf of respondent No.2, the Divisional Manager was examined as RW1 and the copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
10. Considering the claim of petitioners and counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding compensation of Rs.12,05,000/- along with interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and subsequent interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of award till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.
11. Challenging the quantum of compensation, appellants-petitioners have filed this Motor Accident Civil 6 Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
12. Heard Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopireddy, learned counsel for appellants-petitioners and Sri S.Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for appellants-petitioners is that though appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A10, the learned Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously awarded meager amount towards compensation by not awarding the future prospects and sought for enhancement of compensation amount.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance company has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
7
15. 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 12.04.2017 by the learned Tribunal?
P O I N T:
16. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
17. PW1 who is the mother of the deceased reiterated the contents of the claim application and got marked Ex.A1 to A8 as she is not an eyewitness to the accident, hence got examined PW2 and PW3 who are eyewitnesses to the accident, deposed that they witnessed the accident. PW2 witnessed the accident while he was proceeding to his agricultural fields at outskirts of Thippalammagudem and PW3 witnessed the accident while he was proceedings to Thipparthy village in his auto. Both these witnesses, categorically deposed that the deceased and one Saketh Reddy were proceeding on the Motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AQ 9638 at about 01:30 AM., early hours on 14.12.2014 when they reached outskirts of Thipparthy Village and Mandal one Lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 2419 8 was stationed by its driver negligently on the middle of the road without any precautions and the deceased who was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road and due to focus lights the deceased could not observe the stationed lorry which was parked due to which he dashed the said stationed lorry from its back side and sustained grievous injuries resulting his instantaneous death. Even though PW1 to PW3 were cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence.
18. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that a case in Crime No.229 of 2014 was registered by Police, Thipparthy and took up investigation and during the course of investigation, inquest, postmortem examination and scene of offence panchanama was conducted and those reports were marked as Exs.A2 to A4 respectively and after completion of investigation, Ex.A6-Charge sheet was filed against the driver of the lorry stating that the accident took place due to his negligence on the part of lorry driver for parking 9 the lorry without taking any precautions. Ex.A2-Inquest report shows that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. Ex.A3-Postmortem examination report shows the injuries suffered by the deceased and the cause of death was due to 'head injury'. Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report shows that there are no mechanical defects in the lorry. Ex.A7-Work assignment of Team Lease Service Pvt., Ltd., Ex.A8-Driving license of the deceased shows that the deceased was having valid and effective driving license. Ex.A9-Appointment letter of the deceased and Ex.A10-Pay slip of the deceased for the month of November, 2014.
19. RW1-Divisional Manager of respondent No.2- Insurance company deposed that the lorry was insured with their insurance company and the copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 and that it is valid and in force as on the date of accident and further deposed that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.
20. As regards the manner of accident is concerned, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who are eyewitnesses to the accident, coupled with the 10 documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of lorry. 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.
21. Petitioners have also got examined PW4- Employer of the deceased who deposed that the deceased was employed with them as Field Assistant and that he was under their employment till his death. He further deposed that there would be raise in his salary on performance basis, to an extent of 15% to 20% on the gross salary. He issued Ex.A7-Work assignment of Team Lease Service Pvt., Ltd., Ex.A9-Appointment letter of the deceased dated 12.06.2014 shows that he was appointed as Field Assistant with Employee No.731928 and Ex.A10-Pay slip of the deceased for the month of November, 2014 shows that his earnings were Rs.11,347/- and his deductions were Rs.1,258/- and his net salary was Rs.10,089/-. During 11 the course of cross-examination, nothing elicited to disbelieve his evidence.
22. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 23 years and as he worked as Field Assistant, has taken income at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and ultimately the annual income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.60,000/-
per annum. While calculating further compensation amount, the learned Tribunal has not awarded future prospects on the ground that the deceased was terminated from job before his demise under Ex.A7.
23. It is pertinent to state here that the deceased worked as Field Assistant during this lifetime but terminated later on vide Ex.A7. As seen from Ex.A7-Letter dated 28.03.2014 it discloses that the deceased was terminated from employment due to the expiry of the work assignment and subsequent project closure. 12 Therefore, it is clear that termination of the deceased was due to the expiry of the work assignment and subsequent project closure but not due to any fault on the part of the deceased in employment. As stated supra, the deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and he worked as Field Assistant in Team Lease Service Private Limited. It is evident from record that the deceased was given experience certificate also. An educated person with experience in previous job, is not expected to sit idle without doing any work. Therefore, muchless he can be treated as 'self-employed' for the purpose of awarding future prospects, in a case filed under beneficial legislation.
24. In Kirti and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd 1 the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that:
"13. Third and most importantly, it is unfair on part of the respondent-insurer to contest grant of future prospects considering their submission before the High Court that such compensation ought not to be paid pending outcome of the National Insurance Company Limited Vs. 1 Civil Appeal Nos.1920 of 2021 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.1872829 of 2018] 13 Pranay Sethi and others 2. Nevertheless, the law on this point is no longer res integra, and stands crystalised, as is clear from the following extract of the aforecited Constitutional Bench Judgment:
"59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
25. In the above authority, it is made clear by the Honourable Supreme Court of India that if the deceased was self-employed, under the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% of established income can be awarded. In the case on hand, the established income of the deceased is Rs.10,000/- per month.
2 2017 ACJ 2700 14
26. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited supra) 40% i.e., Rs.4,000/- towards future prospects can duly be added thereto, which comes to Rs.14,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.4,000/-). Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.14,000x12). Since the deceased was a bachelor, after deducting half of the income (Rs.84,000/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 3, the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.1,68,000/- - Rs.84,000/-).
27. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 23 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 '18'. Thus, applying the multiplier '18' to the annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.84,000/-, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,12,000/- 3 2009 (6) SCC 121 15 (Rs.84,000/- x 18). As seen from the Order of the learned Tribunal, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses, however, in view of Pranay Sethi's case, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Thus, in all, petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,45,000/-.
28. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.12,05,000/- is at lower side and the same is increased to Rs.15,45,000/-. In so far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and subsequent interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of award till the date of realization. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 4 inclined to enhance the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal to 7.5 percent per 4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 16 annum on entire compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation amount along with interest shall be deposited by respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, petitioners are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
29. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.12,05,000/- to Rs.15,45,000/- 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 20-MAR-2024 KHRM