Telangana High Court
Diviti Saraswathi vs E. Prashanth Reddy on 4 November, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1882 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge), Nizamabad in O.P.No.299 of 2014, dated 22.07.2016, the claim petitioners therein preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are the wife and son of the deceased- Diviti Anjaiah, filed claim petition under Section 166 (1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.02.2014. It is stated by the petitioners that on 09.02.2014, when the deceased was going on his Motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-AF-6414 from Nizamabad to Bodhan and at about 4.00 p.m., when he reached the limits of Sarangapoor, one Car bearing No.AP-28-BF- 4859 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed came in the opposite direction and dashed the deceased due to which he sustained fatal injuries and died on 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.1882 of 2019 the spot. Based on information, Police of Nizamabad Police Station registered a case in Crime No.59 of 2014 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged 49 years and used to earn Rs.60,000/- per month by working as Assistant Sub-Inspector and Rs.1,00,000/- from Agriculture. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income and hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- along with costs and interest against the respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime Santro Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859.
4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the Car bearing No.AP- 28-BF-4859, filed his written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of subject car is holding valid driving license at the time of accident and that the subject Car was insured with 2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident, hence, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.1882 of 2019 driving of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-AF-6414, as such, the owner and insurer of the said motor cycle are necessary parties and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether on 09.02.2014 at about 4.00 p.m. in the limits of Sarangapoor village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859 by its driver?
(ii) Whether Diviti Anjaiah received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?
(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of respondent?
(iv) To what relief?
7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, RWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
8. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both sides, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.39,92,842/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.1882 of 2019 date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondents jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the said compensation, the claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal seeking for enhancement of the same.
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
10. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellants are that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.34,542/- instead of Rs.27,868/- and ought to have considered revision of pay as Rs.43,680/- as per Ex.X1; ought to have considered the additional income from Agriculture; ought to have considered higher amounts under the head of loss of care, protection and guidance to the 2nd petitioner;
ought to have considered more interest on the compensation amount and hence prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
5
MGP,J MACMA.No.1882 of 2019
12. Now the point that arises for determination is, Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record. Petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined herself as PW1. As she is not an eye witness to the incident, she got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident and also got examined PW3 on her behalf and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.X1 to X3 on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
14. PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident, deposed in his evidence that on 09.02.2016, when he along with Dandu Ashok were going on their motorcycle to Bodhan, the deceased- Diviti Anjaiah, who was going on his motorcycle, was ahead of them and when he reached the limits of Sarangapoor at 4.00p.m., one Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to which, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
15. Further, a perusal of charge sheet under Ex.A2 shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.1882 of 2019 driver of Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859 and Ex.A3-Inquest report also shows that the deceased died due to grievous Head injury. Ex.A4-Post mortem examination report discloses that the cause of death was due to "Hypovolumic shock & intracentral Hemorrhage due to RTA injures". Ex.A5 is the Crime Details Form. Further, Ex.A6- Report of Motor Vehicle Inspector shows that the occurrence of accident was not due to any mechanical defect. Therefore, from the evidence of PW2 coupled with the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A6, it is clear that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal.
16. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the net salary of the deceased, fixed the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.27,868/- and calculated compensation which arrived @ Rs.39,92,842/-. This Court, taking into consideration the Pay Certificate issued for the month of January 2014 by the Administrative Officer of District Police Office, Nizamabad, showing the take home salary of the deceased as Rs.34,542/- (which includes deduction of Professional Tax) under Ex.A7 and also considering Ex.X2-Form 16 issued towards deduction of Income Tax of the deceased which is @ 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.1882 of 2019 Rs.8608/- per annum, is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.33,825/- (after deduction of Income Tax). Since the age of the deceased was 49 years at the time of accident, if 30% 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, then the net future monthly income comes to Rs.43,972/- .Since the number of dependants are two, if 1/3rd amount is deducted towards the personal and living expenses, then the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.29,315/- and the annual income comes to Rs.3,51,780/- and after applying multiplier '13' for the deceased being aged 49 years, then the total loss of dependency as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2comes to Rs.45,73,140/-. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of care and protection and guidance to 2nd petitioner. So far as the amounts awarded under funeral expenses and loss of consortium are concerned, this Court considers that the said amounts are on higher side and which 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.1882 of 2019 needs interference. Hence, this Court, by relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 2700), is inclined to award a sum of Rs.77,000/- towards conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. However, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head of loss of care and protection and guidance to 2nd petitioner. Thus in all, the appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.47,50,140/- which is calculated as under:-
Sl.No. Name of the By the By this Court
Head under Tribunal
which
compensation
awarded
1 Compensation Rs.37,67,842 Rs.45,73,140/
under the head of
loss of
dependency
2. Compensation Rs.1,25,000/- Rs.77,000/-
awarded under
conventional
heads
3. Loss of care, Rs.1,00,000/- -
protection and
guidance to the
2nd petitioner
TOTAL Rs.47,50,140/-
17. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 9 MGP,J MACMA.No.1882 of 2019 Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3, enhances the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal from 6% per annum to 7.5% per annum.
18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1882 of 2019 is partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.39,92,842/- to Rs.47,50,140/- and which shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.04.11.2024 ysk 3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35