Telangana High Court
Yasa Swathi,Mounika And 2 Others vs Marri Madhuri And Another on 18 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
1284 of 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated 02.11.2017 in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.776 of 2014 (for short 'impugned Order') passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal'), appellants-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 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Rules 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the 2 death of one Sri Yasa Manoranjan Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 05.08.2011. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are parents of the deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 05.08.2011 while the deceased along with his relative Thangella Srinivas Reddy were proceeding towards Hyderabad from Peddavoora Village on his Motorcycle bearing No. AP 24 D 3542 when they reached near Oikonomas School, Yacharam Village on Sagar road, one Maruthi Swift Car bearing No. AP 29 BW 6566 (for short hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle') came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to their motorcycle from backside, due to impact of accident, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot and while undergoing treatment the said Thangella Srinivas Reddy also died. The Police, Yacharam registered a case in Crime No.187 of 2014 against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 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 Private Employee and used to earn Rs.12,000/- 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 PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondent-Insurance company, RW1-Official of Insurance company and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. 4
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.8,93,000/- with 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, by fixing liability on 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 Smt.Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for appellants-petitioners and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for Insurance company- respondent. Perused the material available on record.
11. The contention of learned counsel for appellants-claim petitioners is that though appellants 5 proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A5, the learned Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously awarded meager amount towards compensation by not awarding the future prospects 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?
P O I N T:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents available on record.
6
15. PW1 who is the wife of the deceased reiterated the contents of the claim application and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 as she was not an eyewitness to the accident, hence got examined PW2 who is eyewitness to the accident, deposed that he witnessed the accident while he was returning home from Yacharam and categorically deposed about the manner of the accident. Even though PW1 and PW2 were cross-examined, nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence.
16. 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.
17. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A5. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police, Yacharam registered a case in Crime No.187 of 2014 against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC and took up investigation and during the course of investigation, inquest and postmortem 7 examination were conducted over the dead body of the deceased and those reports were marked as Exs.A2 and A3 respectively and after completion of investigation, Ex.A5- 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.A4-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report shows that there are no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Ex.B1 is the copy of the insurance policy which was in force as on the date of accident.
18. 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.
8
19. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the age of the deceased as 32 years and as he used to do private job, has taken income at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding of the learned Tribunal, which appears to be reasonable. As seen from the impugned Order, the learned Tribunal failed to grant future prospects. 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.2,400/- towards future prospects can duly be added thereto, 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 three dependents, after deducting 1/3rd of the income (Rs.33,600/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and 1 2017 ACJ 2700 9 another 2, the net annual contribution to the family comes to Rs.67,200/- (Rs.1,00,800/- - Rs.67,200/-).
20. The learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the deceased was 32 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 '16'. Thus, applying the multiplier '16' to the annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.67,200/-, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,75,200/- (Rs.67,200/- x 16). In addition to that, petitioners are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 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.11,52,200/-.
21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.8,93,000/- is enhanced to Rs.11,52,200/-. In so far as interest aspect is 2 2009 (6) SCC 121 10 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. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3 inclined to enhance the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal to 7.5 percent per annum on entire compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The entire compensation amount along with enhanced 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 are entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
22. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.8,93,000/- to Rs.11,52,200/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 11 As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 18-NOV-2024 KHRM