S Godavari Alias Godavari Goud, ... vs Shaik Qhasimullah, Medak Dist And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6960 Tel

        HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 2444 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 27.12.2014 passed in

O.P.No.1755 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts,

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

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the

compensation.

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

The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for

the death of one S. Santosh Goud (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred

on 05.03.2013. It is stated that on the fateful day, at 2:00 p.m.,

while the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle from

Hyderabad towards Chilipiched Village, and when he reached

near Mango Garden in the outskirts of Naguldevpally, the

offending vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No. AP 13Q 9200, owned by

respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2, being driven

by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed,

dashed the motorcycle, due to which, the deceased fell down

and received fatal injuries. The deceased died while he was

being shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. According to the

claimants, the deceased was 35 years, running bangle stores

and earning Rs.25,000/- per month and due to sudden demise

of the deceased, the appellants lost their source of income.

Therefore, they laid the claim against the respondent Nos. 1 &

2. Respondent No. 3 is the mother of the deceased.

3. Respondent No. 1 remained ex parte before the tribunal

and the respondent No. 2 filed counter resisting the claim of the

claimants. Respondent No. 3 also filed her counter contending

that she too dependent on the deceased and she being mother is

entitled to get the compensation. After considering the claim

and the counters filed by respondent No.2, and on evaluation of

the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal

has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of

Rs.13,05,000/- in favour of claimants and also respondent No.

3, with interest at 7.5% per annum, payable by respondent

Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the

present appeal came to be filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for

the appellants is that as per the principles laid down by the

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, the appellants are also entitled to

the future prospects and also Rs.77,000/- under conventional

heads. It is further contended that though the claimants

claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month

by running two bangle stores, which is established through

Ex.A.11, photographs and C.D., in the absence of any contra

evidence, the tribunal ought not to have restricted the income of

the deceased to Rs.10,000/-. It is lastly contended that the

claimant Nos. 2 & 3, being the minor children of the deceased,

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.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits

that except filing photographs and C.D. copy, the claimants

have failed to adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary,

to show that the deceased was running bangle stores, and even

though no such evidence is produced, the tribunal has taken

2017 ACJ 2700

(2018) 18 SCC 130

the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-, which is, in

fact, adequate and therefore, the same needs no interference by

this Court. It is submitted that the issue with regard to the

future prospects has been considered by the Apex Court in

Pranay Sethi and others (supra) and as per the said

judgment, the appellants are entitled to addition of 40% to the

established income towards future prospects. It is further

submitted that the compensation towards non-pecuniary

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

7. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the

Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry by its

driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of

P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically

observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and has answered the

issue in favour of the appellants and against the respondents.

Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the

Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of Lorry.

8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

though the appellants claimed that the deceased was earning

Rs.25,000/- by running two bangle stores, they did not

substantiate the same through any cogent evidence except filing

Ex.A.11, photographs and C.D. In the absence of the same, the

tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased

at Rs.10,000/-. However, the claimants are also 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) since the deceased was 34 years at the

time of the accident. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased

comes to Rs.14,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.4,000/- being 40%

thereof). As the dependants are four in number, 1/4th is to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3. After

deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living

expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family comes

to Rs.10,500/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was

34 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier

is '16' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma (supra).

Adopting multiplier '16', the total loss of dependency would be

Rs.10,500/- x 12 x 16 = 20,16,000/-. The claimants are also

entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per

Pranay Sethi's case (supra). That apart, as per the decision of

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

the Apex Court in Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra), the

claimant Nos. 2 & 3, being minor children of the deceased, are

entitled to Rs.80,000/- towards parental consortium. Thus, in

all the claimants and the respondent No. 3 are entitled to

Rs.21,73,000/-.

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

amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from

Rs.13,05,000/- to Rs.21,73,000/-. The enhanced amount shall

carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by

the Tribunal till the date of realization. Time to deposit the

amount is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the

manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Since it is reported that

respondent No. 3, mother of the deceased died, her share shall

equally be distributed among the claimants. However, the

claimants are directed to pay deficit court fee on the enhanced

amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

26.12.2022 tsr

HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 2444 of 2015

DATE: 26-12-2022

TSR