Tanneeru Koteswri 5 Others vs V. Sridevi Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2723 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.925 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the

award and decree dated 28.10.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.974 of

2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, „the

Tribunal‟).

3. It is the case of the appellants that they filed M.V.O.P.No.974

of 2009, under Sections 163-A, 140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles

Act (for short, „the Act‟) read with Rules 455 and 476 of the A.P.

Motor Vehicles Rules claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for

the death of Tanneeru Vijaya Bhaskar (hereinafter referred to as

„the deceased‟), who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on

22.06.2009 near Naidu Buildings, Srisailam Road, Macherla, due

to rash and negligent driving of driver of DCM TATA (Turbo) Lorry

bearing No.AP-04-X-6404 belonging to the 1st respondent herein.

The said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The 1st

appellant is wife, 2nd appellant is son, 3rd appellant is daughter, 4th

appellant is son, 5th appellant is mother and 6th appellant is father

of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

Tribunal erred in awarding medical expenses of Rs.45,000/-

against the claim of the appellants as Rs.1,30,000/-. Similarly,

the Tribunal also erred in restricting the claim amount, though it

came to a conclusion that the appellants are entitled for an

amount of Rs.6,88,500/- under the head of general damages, due

to claim of the appellants is Rs.2,45,000/- only, restricting the

amount awarded under this head upto Rs.2,45,000/-, which is

also against the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others1, wherein it is held at

paragraph Nos.13, 16, 19, 20 and 21 as under:

"13. Hence, as stated earlier, it is for the Tribunal to determine just compensation from the evidence which is brought on record despite the fact that the claimant has not precisely stated the amount of damages of compensation which he is entitled to. If the evidence on record justifies passing of such award, the claim cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the claimant has restricted his claim. Form 63 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is for filing an application for compensation, does not provide that the claimant should specify his claim amount. It inter alia provides that he should mention his monthly income as well as the nature of injury sustained and medical certificates.

16. From the aforesaid observations it cannot be held that there is a bar for the Claims Tribunal to award the compensation in excess of what is claimed, particularly when the evidence which is brought on record is sufficient to pass such award. In cases where there is no evidence on record, the court may permit such amendment and allow to raise additional issue and give an opportunity to the parties to produce relevant evidence.

19. The aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court was relied upon and referred to by the Orissa High Court in Mulla Md. Abdul Wahid v. Abdul Rahim (1994 ACJ 348 (Ori) and G.B.Pattanaik, J. ( as he then was) observed that the expression "just compensation" would obviously mean what is fair, moderate and reasonable and awarded in the proved circumstances of a particular case and the expression „which appears to it to be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determining of compensation. Thereafter, the Court referred to the decision in Sheikhupura Transport Co.Ltd

(2003) 2 SCC 274

v. Northern India Transport Insurance Co. ((1971) 1 SCC 785) and held that the pecuniary loss to the aggrieved party would depend upon data which cannot be ascertained accurately but must necessarily be an estimate or even partly a conjecture, and if this is so, then it will be unreasonable to expect the party to state precisely the amount of damages or compensation that it would be entitled to. The Court also held that there are no fetters on the power of the Tribunal to award compensation in excess of the amount which is claimed in the application.

20. Similarly, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Devki Nandan Bangur v. State of Haryana (1995 ACJ 1288 (P&H)) observed that the grant of just and fair compensation is the statutory responsibility of the court and if, on the facts, the court finds that the claimant is entitled to higher compensation, the court should allow the claimant to amend his prayer and allow proper compensation.

21. For the reasons discussed above, in our view, under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award "just" compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition."

5. He further contended that the other finding of the Tribunal

that the minors are not entitled for any compensation is also

against the settled principles of law and object of the provisions of

the Act. Hence, in view of the judgment stated above, the awarded

amount can be enhanced if the appellants are entitled even more

than the claim amount. In view of the settled principles, the award

passed by the Tribunal shall be modified and to be awarded as per

their entitlement even if it is more than the claim of the appellants

and out of the said awarded amount, the minors can be also

entitled equal shares on par with other appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent appeared and

contended that the Tribunal, after considering all the aspects put

forth before it, passed the award as per the claim of the appellants

only and they cannot be entitled for more than the amount claimed

by them under the head of general damages. Therefore, the

present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and material

available on record, passed the award dated 28.10.2011, wherein it

awarded an amount of Rs.45,000/- under the head „medical

expenses‟ against the claim of Rs.1,30,000/- since the deceased

underwent treatment after suffering injuries and thereafter, he

succumbed to death. Similarly, the appellants claimed

Rs.10,000/- under the head „funeral expenses‟ but the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- under this head and the

appellants also claimed Rs.15,000/- under the head „loss of

consortium‟ but the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-

only under this head. Finally, in total, under the head „special

damages‟ the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.52,000/- against

the claim of Rs.1,55,000/-. The Tribunal, as per the evidence of

PW.1 and salary certificate of the deceased, taken into

consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month.

It is observed by the Tribunal that the post-mortem report and

inquest report, which are marked as Exs.A.4 and A.5, shown the

age of the deceased as „34‟ years. Therefore, the Tribunal, by

considering the age of the deceased, applied the appropriate

multiplier „17‟. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,29,500/-

under the head „general damages‟. Therefore, the total amount

awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.2,81,500/-. It is also observed by

the Tribunal that in view of the monthly salary of the deceased, if

3/4th multiplier is applied instead of 1/4th, the appellants are

entitled to an amount of Rs.6,88,500/- under the head „general

damages‟ but since the claim of the appellants is only

Rs.2,45,000/-, the amount to be awarded is also restricted to the

claim of Rs.2,45,000/- only. But in view of the order dated

24.09.2012 in I.A.No.832 of 2012, which was allowed amending

the claim, the award amount was enhanced to the tune of

Rs.2,97,000/- and also awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum. The Tribunal further directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to

deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of the order

and appellant Nos.1, 5 and 6 are entitled to withdraw an amount

of Rs.50,000/- each upon deposit of amount by respondent Nos.1

and 2 and the rest of the claim is dismissed. The Tribunal also

observed that appellant Nos.2 to 4, who are minors, are not

entitled for any compensation, which is against object of the Act.

8. Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for

the appellants as well as 2nd respondent, this Court is of the view

that the award of the Tribunal should be modified in view of the

law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation2, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court

specifically observed that where the claimants are more than two,

the deduction in respect of personal expenses should be restricted

2009 (6) SCC 121

to 1/4th of the monthly salary of the deceased. If this principle is

applied, the contribution of the deceased to the family members

comes to Rs.3,375/- per month and per annum, it comes to

Rs.40,500/-. Since the deceased is aged about 34 years,

appropriate multiplier should be applied is „17‟. If „17‟ multiplier is

applied, the amount to be awarded under the head „general

damages‟ is comes to Rs.6,88,500/-. The said entitlement of

amount is more than the claim of the appellants. Though the

appellants/claimants claimed Rs.4,00,000/- towards

compensation, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex

Court in Nagappa's case (supra 1), just and reasonable

compensation can be awarded.

9. In view of the reasons and circumstances stated above, it is

a fit case to enhance the compensation from Rs.2,45,000/- to

Rs.6,88,500/- under the head of general damages. Medical

expenses can be enhanced from Rs.45,000/- to 50% of the claimed

amount of Rs.1,30,000/- i.e., Rs.65,000/-; loss of consortium can

be enhanced from Rs.5,000/-to Rs.10,000/- and funeral expenses

can be enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to 5,000/-. Therefore, the

appellants will be entitled to the total compensation, which is as

follows:--

        General damages                   Rs.6,88,500/-

        Medical expenses                  Rs. 65,000/-

        Loss of consortium                Rs. 10,000/-

        Funeral expenses                  Rs.    5,000/-
                Total:                    Rs.7,68,500/-




10.   Thus,   in   all,    the    appellants   are   entitled   to   a   total

compensation of Rs.7,68,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

11. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the

compensation from Rs.2,97,000/- to Rs.7,68,500/- with interest at

the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realisation and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable

to pay the compensation. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

this Appeal shall stand closed.

______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

Date: 24.06.2022 Ivd

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

M.A.C.M.A.No.925 of 2014

Dated: 24.06.2022

Ivd