Smt. Bijan Been, And 3 Others vs Pichakuntla Manikyam, And 3 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6348 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.1651 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in M.V.O.P. No.449 of 2012

dated 07.07.2015, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners, the deceased-Md.Anwar Ali was

aged 40 years, working in ITW Signode India Limited, Rudraram

village and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. As usual on 20-01-2010

at about 9-15 p.m., the deceased was going on his bicycle to attend his

night shift duty in the company and when he reached the limits of

Rudraram village on National Highway No.9, the rider of the Hero

Honda Passion plus motorcycle bearing no. AP 23 Q 4903 drove it in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the bicycle of the deceased, due

to which the deceased fell down and received injuries all over his body

and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sangareddy,

from there to Prime Hospital, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad,

where the deceased died while undergoing treatment on 25.01.2010.

Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under

various heads against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and

insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 23 Q 4903.

4. Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2

filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred, age,

avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the

rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving license at the time

of accident and that the claim is excessive.

5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following

issues:

1) Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

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

3) To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1

and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of

respondent No.2, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were

marked.

7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,64,500/- towards compensation

to the appellants-claimants along with proportionate costs and interest

@ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit

directing the respondent No.2/insurer to pay the compensation to the

claimants at the first instance and recover the same from the respondent

No.1 by filing an execution petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted

that although the claimants have established the fact that the death of the

deceased-Md.Anwar Ali was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal

awarded meager amount.

10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.2-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that the Tribunal after considering all aspects has

awarded adequate compensation and the same needs no interference by

this Court.

11. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no dispute.

However, after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the

documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the

accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of

the motorcycle bearing No.AP 23 Q 4903 which caused the death of the

deceased Md.Anwar Ali.

12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the

petitioners, deceased-Md.Anwar Ali was aged 40 years, working in ITW

Signode India Limited, Rudraram village and was earning Rs.6,000/- per

month. Even as per Exs.A1, A2 and A5 also, the deceased is an

employee of ITW Signode India Limited. The Tribunal has taken

notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, which is very

less. Therefore, considering the avocation of the deceased as an

employee of ITW Signode India Limited and the accident pertains to the

year 2010, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month.

Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1,

the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 25% of his income,

since the deceased was aged in between 42 years. Then it comes to

Rs.7,500/- (6,000 + 1,500 = 7,500/-). From this, 1/5th is to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are six in number.

After deducting 1/5th amount towards his personal and living expenses,

the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.6,000/- per

month (7,500 - 1,500 = 6,000/-). Since the deceased was 42 years by

the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '14' as per the

decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

(supra). Adopting multiplier '14', the total loss of dependency would be

Rs.6000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.10,08,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimants

are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per

Pranay Sethi's (supra). Apart from that, as per the decision of the

Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3, the claimant Nos.2 to 4 being the

minor children of the deceased, are granted parental consortium of

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

(2018) 18 SCC 130

Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to

Rs.12,05,000/-.

13. With regard to the liability, it is contended by the appellant-

Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not

having valid driving license and the police have filed charge sheet

against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence under Section

181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per Section 149(2) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, heavy burden lies upon the insurer to prove that the

driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of the

accident. The evidence of RW-2 does not establish that the driver of the

offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving license as on

the date of the accident or not. But it only discloses the fact that the

driver has been prosecuted for not producing the driving license. In that

light, the evidence of RW-2 is not of much assistance to the insurer in

order to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not

possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged

accident. This evidence also does not come to the aid of the insurer to

discharge its primary duty to establish that there was breach of terms of

the policy. As per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in

RUKMANI AND OTHERS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. AND

OTHERS4, when the insurer had failed to prove the defence raised in

the statement of objections, such a plea cannot be accepted. When the

police officer or the records are not summoned from the transport

authority to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was

not having a valid and effective driving license, then, under such

circumstances, it has to be held that the insurer has failed to discharge its

burden. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be sustained and it

is hereby rejected. Further the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece

of legislation. It has been time and again held that trappings of civil and

criminal proceedings cannot be applied in a very strict manner.

Therefore, in view of my above discussion, the respondent Nos.1 and 2

are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,64,500/- to

Rs.12,05,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Out of the entire

(1998) 9 SCC 160

compensation, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are entitled for Rs.50,000/-

each and the remaining amount shall be apportioned to the petitioners in

the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The amount shall be deposited

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced

compensation, since the initial claim was for Rs.6,00,000/-. On such

payment of deficit court fee only, the claimants are entitled to withdraw

the amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

02.12.2022 pgp