Smt.Rajanoina Sayavva 3 Ors vs Srisailam Chary Mandaloju Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3991 Tel

                   HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.1429 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in

the judgment and decree, dated 10.01.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.184 of

2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short "the Tribunal"),

the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation

of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one Baswaraj (hereinafter referred to

as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated

that on 23.05.2010 when the deceased was at home, the driver of Lorry

No.AP 29 TA 3923 came and took the deceased along with him as a

reliever and when the lorry reached near I.B.Thanda, the driver of the

Lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed due to which

the lorry turned turtle and the deceased died on the spot. It is also

stated that the deceased was aged about 36 years and he was earning

Rs.6,000/- per month as lorry driver and has contributed his entire

GSD, J Macma_1429_2012

earnings for the welfare of the family and due to sudden demise of the

deceased, the claimants lost their source of income and future support.

As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver

of the Lorry, the claimants filed the claim-petition against the

respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said Lorry.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte. The

2nd respondent filed counter denying the manner in which the accident

took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It

is also stated that the driver of the Lorry was not holding valid and

effective licence at the time of alleged accident and that the quantum

of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless and prayed to dismiss

the petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following

issues:-

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

GSD, J Macma_1429_2012

6. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2

were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the

negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and accordingly awarded an

amount of Rs.3,85,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization payable the 1st respondent only while

dismissing the claim against the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company on

the ground that the no premium was paid in respect of additional driver.

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and also exonerating the

Insurance Company from its liability, the claimants filed the present

appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal

has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the Lorry by its driver, to which the

Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the

documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident has

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry

and has answered in favour of the claimants and against the

GSD, J Macma_1429_2012

respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of

the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of Lorry.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the

claimants claimed that the deceased was a driver and earning Rs.6,000/-

per month, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at

Rs.3,000/- as the claimants did not produce any proof to show that the

deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. In Latha Wadhwa vs.

State of Bihar1 the Apex Court held that even there is no proof of

income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated. Since

the deceased was aged about 36 years and he was able bodied person

and as per the evidence of P.W.2, the deceased was a driver, this Court

inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month.

Apart from the same, the claimants are also entitled to addition of 40%

towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others2. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v.

(2001) 8 SCC 197

2017 ACJ 2700

GSD, J Macma_1429_2012

Delhi Transport Corporation3 as the claimants are four in number.

After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses,

the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.4,725/- per

month. Since the age of the deceased was 36 years at the time of the

accident, the appropriate multiplier is '15' as per the decision reported

in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra). Adopting

multiplier '15', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.4,725/- x 12 x

15 = Rs.8,50,500/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under

the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Thus, in all

the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,27,500/-.

11. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company

submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as

compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded

would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.

12. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental

Insurance Company Limited and another4, the Apex Court while

referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh5 held as under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_1429_2012

Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the

claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed.

Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation,

where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the

Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants

to a just and reasonable extent.

14. Insofar as the liability of the 2nd respondent is concerned, the

Tribunal while exonerating the 2nd respondent categorically held that

"Ex.B1 which is the insurance policy, shows that no premium was paid in

respect of additional driver." But, a perusal of Ex.B2-policy copy would

show that an amount of Rs.50/- was paid to cover the risk of the driver

and also paid premium for covering the risk of five persons. Apart from

that, the contents of Ex.A1-F.I.R. would show that the deceased was

taken by P.W.2 as a relief driver. As is evidence from Ex.B2 policy extra

premium of RS.50/- was paid to cover the risk of the driver and since the

deceased in this case is a reliever to the driver, the Tribunal ought to

have fastened the liability against the owner as well as the insurance

GSD, J Macma_1429_2012

company jointly and severally. Therefore, both the respondents are

jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation to the

claimants.

15. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount

awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.3,85,000/- to

Rs.9,27,500/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of passing of judgment by the Tribunal till the date of

realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as

ordered by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the

aforesaid compensation amount within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 01.08.2022 gkv

GSD, J Macma_1429_2012