Smt. K.Anjamma 2 Others vs M.A. Sajid Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6660 Tel

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


                       M.A.C.M.A.No.2463 of 2015
JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the award and decree, dated 07.07.2015 passed in

O.P.No.487 of 2008 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge,

City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad (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. 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.7,74,500/- for the

death of one K. Gopi (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"),

who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.12.2006.

It is stated that on the fateful day, while the deceased was

proceeding on DCM Van bearing No. AP 36T 0272, as

coolie/cleaner, from Narsing Village to Hyderabad, when the

vehicle reached Toopran, the silencer of the vehicle fell down and

while he was in the process of getting it back, the offending vehicle

MGP, J Macma_2463_2015

i.e. Maruti Van bearing No. AP 25U 9771, owned by respondent No.

1 and insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver in

rash and negligent manner, at high speed, dashed the deceased.

As a result, the deceased received head injury and while

undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, succumbed to the

injuries on 02.01.2007. According to the claimants, the deceased

was aged about 25 years and earning Rs.4,000/- per month apart

from batta as cleaner. As the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the

claimants filed the claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2,

being the owner and insurer of the said Maruti Van.

5. Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No.1 remained

ex parte, 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.

6. Considering claim, counter and the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the negligent driving of the Maruti Van by its

driver and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.7,74,500/- with

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

MGP, J Macma_2463_2015

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

severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be

filed by the claimants seeking enhancement.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

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

appellants is that since the claimants have asserted that the

deceased was cleaner employed under P.W.2 and was drawing

Rs.4,000/- per month apart from Rs.50/- per day as batta, the

tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of deceased at

Rs.5,500/- apart from future prospects. It is further contended

that the claimant No.3, being the minor son of the deceased, is

entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium in view of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others1.

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

respondent No.2, Insurance Company, has contended that taking

into consideration the evidence adduced by the claimants, the

tribunal has granted adequate compensation. Further, the

tribunal erred in adding 50% towards future prospects to the

established income of the deceased, and in fact, it should be 40%.

(2018) 18 SCC 130

MGP, J Macma_2463_2015

10. 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.

11. As regards the quantum of compensation, in order to

substantiate their claim that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/-

per month apart from Rs.50/- per day as batta, they have

examined the employer of the deceased as P.W.2. Therefore, taking

into consideration the evidence brought on record, this Court is

inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-.

Considering the fact that the deceased was 25 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 National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2. Therefore, the

future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/-

(Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation3 since there are three

dependants. After deducting 1/3rd therefrom towards his personal

and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_2463_2015

comes to Rs.4,200/- per month. Since the age of the deceased

was 25 years at the time of the accident, 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.4,200/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.9,07,200/-. That

apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the

conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay

Sethi (supra). Further, under the head of parental consortium,

the claimant No.3, being minor son of the deceased, is entitled to

Rs.40,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Nanu Ram @

Chuhru Ram (supra). Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.10,24,200/-.

12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.7,74,500/- to Rs.10,24,200/-. The enhanced amount 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 compensation is two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the major

claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amounts

MGP, J Macma_2463_2015

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

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 09.12.2022 Tsr

MGP, J Macma_2463_2015

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.2463 of 2015

DATE: 09-12-2022

MGP, J Macma_2463_2015