K Varalakshmi, Krishna Dist 2 ... vs E Satyanarayana, Hyderabad Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6415 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI


                      M.A.C.M.A.No.2565 of 2017
JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in

the order and decree, dated 18.11.2016 passed in M.V.O.P. No.120

of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII

Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court at

Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the

compensation.

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

referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the

death of one K. Subramanyam @ Venkata Subba Rao (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident

that occurred on 15.09.2012. It is stated that on the fateful day,

while the deceased, along with his friend, was proceding on a

motorcycle, when they reached near Woodland Restaurent, Dr. A.S.

Rao Nagar, the rider lost control over the motorcycle, hit the

divider, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained

MGP, J Macma_2565_2017

grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital,

the deceased succumbed to the injujries on 16.09.2022. According

to the claimants, the deceased was 20 years at the time of

accident, working as privatae employee and earning Rs.8,000/- per

month. Therefore, they filed the O.P. claiming compensation of

Rs.9.00 lakhs against the respondents.

4. Before the tribunal, while the owner of the vehicle,

respondent No. 1 stood ex parte, the insurance company,

respondent No. 2 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 quantum of compensation

claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Considering claim, counter and the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the bike by its

rider and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.7,30,000/- with

interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization to be payable by the respondents jointly and severally.

Challenging the quantum of compensation as meagre, the present

appeal came to be filed by the claimants.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

MGP, J Macma_2565_2017

7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants is that though the claimants had asserted that the

deceased was working as private employee and earning Rs.8,000/-

per month and though they have produced Ex.A.6, salary

certificate, to the effect that the deceased was drawing Rs.8,000/-

per month, in the absence of any contra evidence, the tribunal

ought to have accepted the avocation of the deceased and the

income, but erroneously fixed the annual income of the deceased

at Rs.70,000/-. It is further contended that the claimant Nos.1 &

22, being the parents of the deceased, ought to have been granted

Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium in view of the judgment

of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company

Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others1. Further, as

per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the claimants

are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects to the

established income of the deceased. Therefore, the learned

counsel seeks enhancement of the compenation awarded by the

tribunal.

(2018) 18 SCC 130

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_2565_2017

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent No.2, Insurance company, has contended that though

the claimants have produced Ex.A.6, salary certificate, they did not

choose to examine the concerned person to substantiate Ex.A.6

and therefore, the tribunal has rightly assessed the annual income

of the deceased at Rs.70,000/- and therefore, the compensation

amount as was awarded by the tribunal needs no interference by

this Court. It is contended that the interest granted @ 9% per

annum is excessive. He also submits that as held by the Apex

Court in several decisions interest should be restricted to 7.5% per

annum.

9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place has become final as the same is not

challenged by either of the respondents.

10. As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimants

claimed that the deceased was working as private employee and

drawing salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. They have also produced

Ex.A.6, salary certifidcate, to substantiate their claim regarding the

income of the deceased. However, as rightly observed by the

tribunal, the person who issued Ex.A.6, salary certificate, was not

examined. But, considering the age of the deceased, considering

the prevailing minimum rate of wages at the relevant point of time,

MGP, J Macma_2565_2017

this Court feels that the annual income of Rs.70,000/- fixed by the

tribunal is not proper. Hence, this court is inclined to fix the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,500/-. Considering the

fact that the deceased was 20 years old at the time of the accident,

the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future

prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the

future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.9,100/-

(Rs.6,500/- + Rs.2,600/- being 40% thereof). From this, since the

deceased was bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased following the decision in Sarla Verma

(supra). After deducting 50% therefrom towards his personal and

living expenses, the contribution of income by the deceased to the

family comes to Rs.4,550/- per month. Since the age of the

deceased was 20 years at the time of the accident, as rightly

contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, the

appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the guidelines laid down by the

Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Adopting multiplier '18', the

total loss of dependency would be Rs.4,550/- x 12 x 18 =

Rs.9,82,800/-. That apart, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of

the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, the claimant

MGP, J Macma_2565_2017

Nos. 1 & 2, being the parents of the deceased, are granted

Rs.40,000/- each under the head of filial consortium as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra).

Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,95,800/-.

11. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is

concerned, the appropriate rate of interest that can be granted is

7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

from the date of petition till realization, as per the decision of the

Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others3.

Hence, the interest granted by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum is

reduced to 7.5% per annum.

12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.7,30,000/-

to Rs.10,95,800/-. The rate of interest awarded by the tribunal on

the compenation amount from the date of filing of the petition till

its realisation is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum. So also,

the amount now enhanced by this Court shall carry interest at

7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of order by the Tribunal till the

date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in

the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time to deposit the entire

3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP, J Macma_2565_2017

compensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to

withdraw their respective share amounts. However, the claimants

are directed to pay the deficit court fee. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 05.12.2022 Tsr

MGP, J Macma_2565_2017

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.2565 of 2017

DATE:05-12-2022