Ravinder Sahu vs M.Kanakasubbu
2022 Latest Caselaw 6358 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No. 2017 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in O.P. No.1638 of 2001, dated

22.08.2014, 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, on 10.04.2000 the deceased Mahesh

Sahu was proceeding towards Nampally Station in an auto and got down

from the auto at Gagan Pahad road, in the meantime, lorry bearing No.

TN 67 Y 0308 being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent

manner with high speed and dashed him, due to which, Mahesh Sahu

died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased Mahesh

Sahu was aged 22 years, working as Machine Operator at A-1 Textiles

and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and used to contribute the same

to his family. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Later deleted the

respondent No.2 and added respondent No.3 who is insurer of the

offending vehicle as per the orders in I.A.Nos.1299 and 1300 of 2013

dated 27.9.2013.

4. Respondent No.2 fled counter alleging that the offending lorry

was not insured with them and it is insured with respondent No.3-United

India Insurance Company and prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Respondent No.3 filed counter disputing the manner of accident,

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

the accident took place due to the contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is

excessive.

6. Originally, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were remained ex parte and

accordingly, after adducing evidence from the petitioners' side, petition

was allowed on 23.2.2004 granting Rs.1,34,000/- as compensation

payable with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the

petition till the date of deposit. Thereafter, ex parte decree passed on

23.2.2004 was set aside as per the orders dated 16.4.2013 passed in

I.A.No.56 of 2013 and respondent No.2 is deleted and respondent No.3

is added as a party.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following

issues:

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. TN 67 Y 0308 causing death of Mahesh Sahu?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8. In order to prove the above issues, PWs.1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.3, no

witnesses were examined and no document was marked.

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

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation

to the appellants-claimants against the respondent Nos.1 and 3 jointly

and severally, along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from

27.09.2013 till the date of deposit.

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

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-United India

Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record.

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

that although the claimants, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and

Exs.A.1 to A.6, established the fact that the death of the deceased-

Mahesh Sahu was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded

meager amount.

12. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.3-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable

compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.

13. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned

Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the

accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased,

PW-2 who is the eyewitness to the accident deposed that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry.

Further the police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet against

the driver of the offending lorry. Therefore, considering the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence available on

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

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

14. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned,

according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 22 years and earning

Rs.4,000/- per month by working as Machine Operator at A-1 Textiles

and he was also getting income of Rs.1,500/- per month by doing

private jobs. However, as there is no income proof, the Tribunal has

taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is very

less. A perusal of inquest report discloses that the deceased is a

mechanic. Therefore, considering the age and avocation of the deceased

and year of accident, the income of the deceased can be taken at

Rs.4,000/- 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 also entitled to the future prospects

and since the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of accident,

40% of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to

Rs.5,600/- (4,000 + 1,600 = 5,600). Since the deceased was a bachelor,

50% of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living

expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.2,800/-

(5,600 - 2,800 = 2,800) per month. Since the deceased was aged about

21 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

2017 ACJ 2700

Corporation2 is "18". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.2,800/-

x 12 x 18 =Rs.6,04,800/-. In addition thereto, under the conventional

heads, the claimants are granted Rs.33,000/- as per the decision of the

Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (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 No.3,

being mother of the deceased, is granted filial consortium of Rs.40,000/-

Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.6,77,800/-.

15. With regard to the liability, as the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, which was insured

with respondent No.3 covering the date of accident, the Tribunal rightly

held that the respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to

pay compensation to the petitioners.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,00,000/- to

Rs.6,77,800/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

from 27.09.2013 till the date of realization, to be payable by the

respondent Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally. The amount of

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

(2018) 18 SCC 130

compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants-claimants 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 the deficit court fee and on such payment

of court fee only, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 02.12.2022 pgp