Telangana High Court
M Amrutha, Ranga Reddy Dist And 2 Others vs Mohd Iqbal, Ranga Reddy Dist And Anr on 19 November, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3060 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the decree and order dated 30.12.2015 passed in O.P.No.1680 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - The Court of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter be referred as 'the Tribunal'), the claim petitioners in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking for grant of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners, who are the parents and brother of the deceased-M.Sharada filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989, against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 01.05.2012. It is stated by the petitioners that on 01.05.2012, the deceased, after completion of her duty at Venkateshwara Nursing Home, Gandimaisamma, boarded an Auto in order to go to Suraram Village and on the way, at about 20.00p.m., when the Auto reached near Sriramnagar Colony, opposite to Petrol Pump, at that time, Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-1097 driven by its driver in a rash and 2 MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3060 of 2016 negligent manner with high speed, dashed the Auto in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous Head injury, fracture of both legs and other injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospitals for treatment and subsequently on 16.05.2012, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment and while undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to injuries on 19.05.2012. Police of Dundigal Police Station registered a case in Crime No.246 of 2012 under Sections 304A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the offending Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-1097. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged 21 years and was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month by working as ANM Nurse in Venkateshwara Nursing Home, Gandimaisamma and used to contribute the same for maintenance of her family. Due to untimely and accidental death of the deceased, the claimants, who are the parents and younger brother have lost their bread winner and were put to mental shock, agony and irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner. Thus, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-1097.
3
MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3060 of 2016
4. Respondent No.1-Owner of the crime Auto, remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the material allegations made in the claim petition and contended that as per Section 158(6) of M.V.Act, it is the mandatory duty of the concerned Police to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information. But the same was not done and did not comply the statutory demand. They also contended that as per Section 134(c) of M.V.Act, it is the mandatory duty of the 1st respondent as well as the petitioners to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time, place of accident, Driving license particulars and etc. Since the 1st respondent had failed to comply the statutory demand, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the Auto in which the deceased travelled and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for trial:-
1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP- 4
MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3060 of 2016 28TC- 1097 causing death of the deceased-
M.Sharada?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.
7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the claim petitioners filed the present Appeal seeking for grant of compensation.
8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners as well as the learned Standing counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellants is that though the petitioners have proved their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, but the learned Tribunal failed to consider the same and hence, prayed to allow the Appeal by awarding reasonable compensation.
5
MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3060 of 2016
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had rightly dismissed the claim petition of the petitioners and interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now the points that emerge for determination are,
(i) Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of compensation?
(ii Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
POINTS:
12. This Court has perused the evidence and documents available on record. Petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and reiterated the contents made in the claim petition. As she is not an eye witness, she got examined PW2, an eye witness to the incident who filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination narrating the contents made in the claim petition. During his cross-examination by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, he deposed that himself, deceased and another person were travelling in the Auto involved in the accident and he do not remember the Auto bearing number. Coming to the documents marked on behalf of the petitioners, a perusal of Ex.A1-FIR shows that Police of Dundigal Police Station registered a case in Crime No.246 of 2012 under Section 304A, conducted investigation and laid charge sheet under 6 MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3060 of 2016 Ex.A4 against the driver of the crime Auto bearing No.AP-28TC- 1097. The contents of the charge sheet disclose that on 01.05.2012 at about 20,00 hours, the deceased boarded a sharing Auto at Gandimaisamma cross roads to go to Suraram village and on the way when the auto reached Sriramnagar colony, near new Petrol Pump, the driver of crime Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-1097 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-2150 which was coming in opposite direction in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased sustained Head injury and fracture injury to her two legs and was immediately shifted to Narayana Hrudalaya Hospitals and later shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and on 19.05.2012, while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector report shows that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. Ex.A6 is the Salary certificate of the deceased issued by Venkateshwara Nursing Home, Hyderabad.
13. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with the documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A4, it is clearly evident that an accident had occurred on 01.05.2012 and the deceased had suffered multiple injuries all over the body and at last, while undergoing treatment, she succumbed to injuries. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation on 7 MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3060 of 2016 account of the death of the deceased. This Court is inclined to interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal and hereby award compensation as under:-
14. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased used to earn Rs.9000/-per month by working as Nurse in Venkateshwara Nursing Home, Gandimaisamma. A perusal of Ex.A5-Salary Certificate issued by Venkateshwara Nursing Home discloses that the deceased used to receive an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards her salary. Since the age of the deceased is 21 years, if 40% is added towards her future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Co.Ltd. v.Pranay Sethi 1, then the income of the deceased comes to Rs.12,600/-. As the number of dependents are 3, if 1/3rdis deducted towards her living and personal expenses, then the net monthly income comes to Rs.8,400/- and the annual income comes to Rs.1,00,800/-. After applying the multiplier '18' as the deceased being aged 21 years, then the total loss of dependency would arrive at Rs.18,14,400/- Apart from this, the petitioners are also entitled for an amount of Rs.77,000/- towards conventional heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & others (2017 1 2017(6) 170 SC 8 MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3060 of 2016 ACJ 2700). Hence, the petitioners are awarded with a total compensation of Rs.18,91,400/-.
15. Insofar as awarding of interest is concerned, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2 hereby award interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award compensation of Rs.18,91,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the petitioners/appellants.
16. It is settled principle of law that the appellants are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as adjudged by the Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh and others 3 wherein it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "...under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is it should be 2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 3 AIR 2003 SC 674 9 MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3060 of 2016 'Just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence.
17. With the above finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the compensation can be granted more than the claim made based on cogent and convincing evidence.
18. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court deems fit and proper to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.
19. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by awarding compensation of Rs. Rs.18,91,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by 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 by paying the deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Dt.19.11.2024 ysk