G Vijaya 3 Others vs G Chennamma 8 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6661 Tel

      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

       M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2432 of 2014 and 3031 of 2014

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since both the appeals, by two sets of legal heirs of

deceased, G. Prakash, are directed against the very same

common judgment and decree, dated 21.01.2014 made in

O.P.No.1289 & 1277 of 2006 respectively, on the file of the

Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional

Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short "the

Tribunal").


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:


O.P. No. 1277 of 2006 was filed by the first wife and children of

deceased claiming compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs and whereas,

O.P. No. 1289 of 2006 was filed by Smt. G. Vijaya and her

children, seeking compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards

compensation on account of death of the deceased, who died in

the accident that occurred on 25.04.2006 involving the RTC bus

bearing No. AP 10Z 3480 belonging to the respondent Nos. 1 &

2. According to them, the accident took place on account of the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus; that the

deceased was 43 years, driver by profession and earning

Rs.3,250/- per month.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondents-RTC filed its counter

denying the averments in the claim-petition, including the

manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and

income of the deceased. It is further contended that the

compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to

dismiss the claim-petition. In O.P. No. 1277 of 2006, the

second wife and children of deceased filed counter claiming that

they alone are entitled to claim compensation and whereas in

O.P. No. 1289 of 2006, the first wife and her children filed their

counter denying the petitioners' relationship with the deceased.

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred

due to the negligent driving of the bus by its driver; that G.

Vijaya (P.W.1) being the second wife of the deceased is not

entitled for any compensation, but her unmarried children are

entitled for compensation. However, the tribunal excluded the

petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 in O.P. No. 1289 of 2006 from the status

of dependency as they were not dependants of the deceased.

After assessing the monthly income of the deceased, the

tribunal allowed both the O.Ps. awarded total compensation of

Rs.4,18,200/- with 7.5% interest per annum thereon to be paid

by the respondents-RTC. Hence, the present appeals by the

petitioners therein seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material

available on record.

7. Both the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners,

representing two sets of legal heirs of deceased, in both the

appeals, submitted that they are mainly aggrieved by the

quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. Both the

counsel state that they are not questioning the findings of the

tribunal as to the apportionment of shares and the

determination of status of petitioners about their entitlement to

get the compensation except denying the share to the second

wife i.e., petitioner No. 1 in O.P.No. 1289 of 2006. It is

contended that since the second wife is a legal representative of

the deceased, she is also entitled to get the compensation.

According to them, the deceased was driver by profession as can

be seen from Ex.A.7, copy of driving licence of deceased, filed in

O.P. No. 1289 of 2006 and therefore, since the deceased was a

skilled person, the tribunal ought to have taken the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.3,000/-. It

is further contended that as per the principles laid down by the

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, considering the age of the deceased

42 years, future prospects at 25% to the established income of

the deceased needs to be added. Further, the petitioner Nos. 6

& 7 in O.P. No. 1277 of 2006 and petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 in O.P.

No. 1289 of 2006, being minor children, are entitled to

Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium as per the

decision of the Apex court in Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others2.

It is lastly contended that as per the decision of the Apex Court

in Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra), apart from Rs.33,000/-

towards funeral expenses & love and affection, both the wives

are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal consortium.

8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

Nos. 1 & 2-RTC has submitted that the Tribunal has, in fact,

granted adequate compensation by taking the monthly income

2017 ACJ 2700

(2018) 18 SCC 130

of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, as was claimed by the

petitioners, and therefore, the same needs no interference by

this Court.

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. On the aspect of the status of second wife, whose claim to

get the compensation was denied by the tribunal, legal position

in this regard has already been explained by this Court in

Kursam Sammakka and others v. A. Srinivas3, wherein

considering similar issue, this Court has held that the second

wife, being legal representative of the deceased, is entitled to get

compensation. Further, at para 9, this court has observed as

under:-

"9. As per Section 163-A of the Act, insurer shall be liable to pay compensation in case of death or permanent disablement to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. As per Section 166(1)(c) of the Act, an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for the compensation as per the above said provisions."

2020 (5) ALD 171 (TS)

In another case, this Court in Minisetti Nageswaramma v. V.

Ramaiah4, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in

Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha5,

categorically held that even second wife is entitled for

compensation. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal in rejecting

the share to the second wife from out of the compensation

amount awarded by it is unsustainable under law and the same

is hereby set aside.

11. As regards the quantum of compensation, there is no

dispute that the deceased was driver by profession, which has

been sufficiently established by marking Ex.A.7, driving licence

of the deceased in O.P. No. 1289 of 2006. Since he was skilled

worker, the fixation of Rs.3,000/- per month by the tribunal is

meager and needs enhancement. Considering the avocation

and age of the deceased, this Court fixes the monthly income of

the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. As rightly contended by

the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are

entitled to addition of 25% towards future prospects to the

established income, as per the decision of the Apex Court in

Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, the future monthly income

2012 (2) ALD 329

2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 370 (SC)

of the deceased comes to Rs.7,500/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.1,500/-

being 25% thereof). From this, 1/5th is to be deducted towards

personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation6 as the dependents are more

than five in number. After deducting 1/5th amount towards his

personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased

to both the families comes to Rs.6,000/- per month. 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 (supra). Adopting multiplier '14', the total loss of

dependency comes to Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.10,08,000/-.

In addition thereto, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.33,000/-

towards love & affection and funeral expenses. Thus, the

petitioners are entitled to Rs.10,41,000/-. Out of the said

amount, both the wives i.e., petitioner No. 1 in both the O.Ps.,

are entitled to 20% share each. Rest of the 60% share shall

equally be distributed at 10% among petitioner Nos. 5 to 7 in

O.P. No.1277 of 2006 and petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 in O.P. No.

1289 of 2006. That apart, petitioner No. 1 in both the O.Ps. are

granted Rs.40,000/- each towards spousal consortium.

Further, the petitioner Nos. 6 & 7 in O.P. No. 1277 of 2006 &

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

petitioner Nos. 4 to 6 in O.P. No. 1289 of 2006, being

unmarried/minor children of deceased, are granted Rs.40,000/-

each as per the Decision of the Apex Court in Nanu Ram @

Chuhru Ram (supra).

12. In the result, both the appeals are allowed as indicated

above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per

annum from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal till the

date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly

and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the

manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time to deposit the

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

this order. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the

deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be

no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 09.12.2022 Tsr

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2432 of 2014 and 3031 of 2014

DATE: 09-12-2022