Telangana High Court
Challa Parvathamma vs Mr. Kalikivai Suresh on 7 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
1927 of 2019
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated 02.08.2016 in Original Petition No.720 of 2012 (for short 'impugned Order') passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal'), appellants-claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal praying this Court 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:
Claim Petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short 'the Act') before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one Sri 2 Challa Muralikrishna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 09.06.2012. Petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are sisters of the deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 09.06.2012 while the deceased along with his friend Md.Hafeez was returning from Mandal Revenue Office, Madugula Village, towards Hyderabad on his Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No. AP 22 AE 3766 when they reached the outskirts of Ramnagar, Mysamma Temple on Sagar-Hyderabad Highway, one Car bearing No. AP 29 BG 4505 (for short 'crime vehicle') came from Hyderabad side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to their motorcycle, due to impact of accident, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died at about 04:50 PM., while undergoing treatment at NIMS Hospital. The Police, Chinthapalli registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2012 against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short referred as 'IPC').
3
05. As per petitioners, the deceased was hale and healthy and he was the only bread-winner of their family. He used to work as Computer Operator in Tahasildar Office, Madgula and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and he used to contribute the same for the welfare of the family. Respondent No.1 being owner and respondents No.2 being Insurance company of the crime vehicle, are liable to pay compensation to petitioners.
06. Respondent No.1 remained exparte before the learned Tribunal. Whereas respondent No.2-Insurance company filed counter denying the averments of the claim application, occurrence of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of crime vehicle. Further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license. The compensation claimed is out of proportions, excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.
07. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioners got examined petitioner No.1 as PW1, PW2-eyewitness and PW3-Employer of the deceased and got marked Exs.A1 to 4 A6 and X1. On behalf of respondent-Insurance company, RW1-Official of Insurance company and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.
08. Considering the claim of petitioners and counter affidavit filed by respondent-Insurance company and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the Motor Vehicle Original Petition, awarding compensation of Rs.6,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, by fixing liability to respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
09. Challenging the quantum of compensation, appellants-petitioners have filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
10. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for appellants-petitioners and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for Insurance company-respondent. Perused the material available on record. 5
11. The contention of learned counsel for appellants-claim petitioners is that though appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A6 and X1, the learned Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously awarded meager amount towards compensation by not awarding the future prospects, medical expenses and other conventional heads. Therefore, he sought for enhancement of compensation amount.
12. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for Insurance company has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
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 by the learned Tribunal? 6 P O I N T:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
15. PW1 who is the mother of the deceased reiterated the contents of the claim application and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 and X1 as she was not an eyewitness to the accident, hence got examined PW2 who is eyewitness to the accident, deposed on 09.06.2012 the deceased along with his friend Md.Hafeez were returning from Mandal Revenue Office, Madugula Village towards Hyderabad on Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No. AP 22 AE 3766 and reached the outskirts of Ramnagar, Mysamma Temple on Sagar- Hyderabad Highway, in the meanwhile, crime vehicle came from Hyderabad side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to their motorcycle, due to impact of accident, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and subsequently, he came to know that the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day. Even though PW1 and PW2 were cross-examined, nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. 7
16. PW3-Deputy Tahsildar, Madgul deposed that the deceased was working as Private Computer Operator in their office since February, 2011 and his monthly salary was Rs.10,000/- per month vide Ex.A6-Salary Certificate. During the course of cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he did not produce any record showing that the deceased was employed in their office.
17. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A6 and X1. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police, Chinthapalli registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2012 against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and took up investigation and during the course of investigation, postmortem examination and inquest were conducted over the dead body of the deceased and those reports were marked as Exs.A3 and A4 respectively and after completion of investigation, Ex.A2- Charge sheet was filed against the driver of the crime vehicle stating that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of crime vehicle. Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report shows that there are no 8 mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Ex.A6-Salary certificate of the deceased and Ex.X1-authorization letter.
18. RW1 is the official of insurance company reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit and it is admitted that Ex.B1-policy was in force as on the date of accident.
19. As regards the manner of accident is concerned, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW1 and PW2-eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of crime vehicle. Therefore, the said findings of the learned Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective, for which this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, the only dispute in the present Appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
20. 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 used to 9 do private job as Computer Operator, has taken income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. In order to prove the employment of the deceased, PW3- Deputy Tahsildar was examined and he confirmed Ex.A6-Salary Certificate of the deceased wherein the salary of the deceased was shown as Rs.10,000/-. Here it is undisputed fact that the deceased was working as Computer Operator, which is a skilled job. Hence, the monthly income taken by the learned Tribunal appears to be at lower side. Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix her monthly income at Rs.8,000/-. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 40% i.e., Rs.3,200/- towards future prospects can duly be added thereto, which comes to Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-). Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,34,400/- (Rs.11,200x12). Since the deceased was bachelor, after deducting half of the income 1 2017 ACJ 2700 10 (Rs.67,200/-) 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 2, the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.67,200/- (Rs.1,34,400/- - Rs.67,200/-).
21. The learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that 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 (cited supra), the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Thus, applying the multiplier '18' to the annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.67,200/-, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.67,200/- x 18). In addition to that, petitioners are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon) as per decision of Honourable Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (cited supra). Thus, in all, petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.12,42,600/-. 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 11
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.6,88,000/- is enhanced to Rs.12,42,600/-. In so far as interest aspect is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding. The enhanced compensation also shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum.
23. Accordingly, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.6,88,000/- to Rs.12,42,600/- 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. The entire compensation amount along with costs and interest shall be deposited by respondents within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, petitioners-appellants are 12 entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. 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: 07-NOV-2024 KHRM