The vs Pranay Sethi 1
2023 Latest Caselaw 3141 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No. 317 of 2013

JUDGEMENT:

The appellants are claimants and the respondents are

respondents in M.V.O.P.No.365 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,

Rajahmundry.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will

be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the

Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards

compensation for the death of Paturi Ratnaji Rao in a motor vehicle

accident that occurred on 02.05.2010.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

VGKR,J MACMA No.317 of 2013

On 02.05.2010 at about 9.30 a.m. the deceased along with

one Maddipati Veerraju was proceeding on a motor cycle and when

they reached Decherla centre, Kondagudem on Kovvur to Eluru

road, a lorry bearing registration No.AP 04V 7230 being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed the motor

cycle from its back, due to which, both Maddipati Veerraju and

Paturi Ratnaji Rao sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to

injuries. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner

and the 3rd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry. Hence, all

the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

5. The respondents filed individual counters by denying the

manner of accident and age, profession and earnings of the

deceased.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 04V 7230 by its driver the 1st respondent herein?

VGKR,J MACMA No.317 of 2013

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation amount claimed? If so, from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of

the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were

marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary

evidence was adduced.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the

evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal

allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.2,72,000/-

towards compensation to the 1st claimant while declining to grant

compensation to claimant Nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the

impugned award, the claimants filed the appeal for enhancement of

compensation.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

10. The main grounds urged by the appellants/claimants are that

the Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects of the deceased to

VGKR,J MACMA No.317 of 2013

his monthly income and also erred in deducting 50% from out of the

monthly income of the deceased towards his personal expenses.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the claimants are entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and

2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

12. POINT Nos.1 and 2 : On considering the evidence of P.W.2,

who is an eye witness to the accident, and on considering Ex.A.1-

attested copy of first information report and Ex.A.5-attested copy of

charge sheet, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry

and in the said accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and

succumbed to injuries. No appeal was filed by the respondents

against the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with

the said finding given by the Tribunal.

13. The accident occurred in the year 2010. As per Ex.A.2-

attested copy of Inquest Report and Ex.A.3-attested copy of Post

VGKR,J MACMA No.317 of 2013

Mortem Report, the deceased was aged about 44 years. The

Tribunal, by giving cogent reasons, considered the notional income

of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum. To this, as per the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi 1 , 25% from out of annual

income has to be added towards future prospects, since the

deceased was in between the age group of 40 years to 50 years

and accordingly, the annual income of the deceased is arrived at

Rs.45,000/- (Rs.36,000/- + Rs.9,000/-). The dependants on the

deceased are three in number. So, 1/3rd from out of the annual

income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased. Having deducted as such, the annual

contribution to the family members of the deceased is arrived at

Rs.30,000/- (Rs.45,000/- - Rs.15,000/-). As stated supra, the

deceased was aged about 44 years as on the date of accident. So,

the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased is

"14", as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla

2017 (16) SCC 680

VGKR,J MACMA No.317 of 2013

Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 and the loss of

dependency is arrived at Rs.4,20,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 14). In

addition to that, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss

of love and affection, Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of

consortium to the 1st claimant and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards

funeral expenses. In total, a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- is awarded

towards compensation to the claimants.

14. Since the respondents admitted in their counters that the

offending lorry was insured with the 3rd respondent/Insurance

company by the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent/driver of the

offending lorry was having valid and effective driving licence and the

policy was also in force as on the date of the accident, all the

respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the

compensation from Rs.2,72,000/- to Rs.4,75,000/- and the claimants

are entitled enhanced compensation of Rs.2,03,000/- with

2009 (4) SCJ 91

VGKR,J MACMA No.317 of 2013

proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of payment by the respondents. The 1st

respondent is driver of 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent is

agent of 2nd respondent. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to

deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,03,000/- with interest at

7.5% p.a. before the Tribunal within two months from the date of the

judgment. On such deposit, the 1st claimant, who is wife of the

deceased, is entitled to withdraw Rs.3,25,000/- along with total costs

and interest on total compensation of Rs.4,75,000/-. Claimant Nos.2

and 3, who are married daughter and son of the deceased

respectively, are entitled to withdraw Rs.75,000/- each. No order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

_______________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J th 14 June, 2023 cbs

VGKR,J MACMA No.317 of 2013

HON 'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No. 317 of 2013

14th June, 2023 cbs