Shaik Haseen Begum vs Mailarishetty Naresh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6517 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.1541 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional

District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P. No.386 of 2014 dated 15.02.2016, the

present appeal is filed by the claimants.

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants are the parents of one Shaik Mujaheed (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased"). It is the case of the claimants that on

25.07.2015 while the deceased along with Syed Ghouse were going on

bicycle and when they reached in front of Masjid at 8-30 a.m. a lorry

bearing No. AP 20 TB 5688 being driven by its driver came in rash and

negligent manner and dashed against their bicycle, as a result of which

both the rider and also pillion rider were run over by the lorry and they

sustained injuries and died. According to the claimants, the deceased

was aged 15 years and was student and also selling fruit juice and

earning Rs.10,000/- per month and therefore, the claimants filed the

aforesaid O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.7 lakhs under various

heads.

4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the

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

also contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and

prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

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

issues:

1) Whether on 25.7.2014 at about 8.30 am in front of Rafeeq ahospital, Nehrunagar, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No. AP 20 TB 5688 by its driver?

2) Whether Shaik Mujaheed received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondent?

4) To what relief?

7. 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-5. On behalf of

respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, however, copy of

insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal

awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with proportionate

costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till

realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the

claimants.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in view of the

law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions, the claimants are

entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and therefore, prayed to

enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company submitted

that after considering all aspects the Tribunal granted adequate

compensation and therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

11. There is no dispute with regard to the accident in question and

involvement of the offending vehicle. However, after evaluating the

evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

12. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 14 years at the time of

accident. In Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others1 the Apex

Court having considered the grant of compensation in similar

circumstances, has awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of

a 10 year old boy. Recently, in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v.

Shyam Kishore Murmu2 the Apex Court has awarded an amount of

Rs.4,70,000/- by fixing the notional income of the deceased boy, who

was aged about 10 years, at Rs.25,000/- and multiplied by '15'.

13. In the instant case, the deceased was 14 years old boy. In view of

the decision of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v.

Shyam Kishore Murmu (2 supra) and having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to take notional income

of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per annum. Accordingly, when the

notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier '15', as

prescribed in Schedule-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the

Motor Vehicles Act 1988, it comes to Rs.3,75,000/- (Rs.25,000/- x

(2014) 1 SCC 244

Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (SC)

Multiplier 15) towards loss of dependency. The appellants are also

entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the appellants are entitled

for Rs.4,70,000/-.

14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from

Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest

at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2nd

respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount, within a

period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by

the Tribunal. The claimants shall be permitted to withdraw their

respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There shall

be no order as to costs.

15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

06.12.2022 pgp