Dasyam Padmavathi vs M/S.V.N.S.Transport
2022 Latest Caselaw 7016 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No. 1200 of 2014

JUDGMENT :

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional

District Judge at Nalgonda vide order dated 12.05.2008 in O.P. No.

356 of 2005, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

2. On 29.01.2005, in the morning hours, while the deceased,

Hasanth Kumar, was going on a motorcycle, along with his friend,

from Miryalguda to Kodad, at about 8:00 a.m., when they reached

Appannapeta Village limits, the offending vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing

No. AP 16TU 5541, owned by the respondent No. 1, insured with

respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver at high speed in a rash

and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle. As a result, the

deceased fell down, received grievous injuries and died on the spot.

According to the claimants, the deceased was 20 years, studying

Degree II-Year, doing private job and earning Rs.5,000/- per month.

Therefore, they laid the claim for Rs.10.00 lakhs towards

compensation against the respondents.

3. While the respondent No. 1, owner of the crime vehicle

remained ex parte, the respondent No. 2, insurance company,

contested the claim petition. The learned Tribunal, considering the

claim of the appellants, counter filed by the Insurance Company and

on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the O.P. in

part, awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- along with

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

date of realization, to be paid by the respondents jointly and

severally.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2.

Perused the material available on record.

5. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants-

cclaimants has argued that the claimants, in order to substantiate

their claim that the deceased was studying Engineering Degree II-

Year, have filed Ex.A.7, the marks memo of deceased for the Degree

I-Year apart from marking Ex.A.6, Class-X marks memo of deceased.

They have also asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/-

per month by doing private works. But, as there was no evidence to

prove the same, the tribunal has fixed the annual income of the

deceased at Rs.15,000/- which is meagre and needs enhancement.

Further, relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others1, the learned counsel has contended that to the assessed

2017 ACJ 2700

income of the deceased, 40% ought to have been added towards

future prospects. Even the amount granted under conventional

heads is too meagre and needs enhancement as per the decision in

Pranay Sethi (supra). It is contended that the multiplier applied by

the tribunal basing on the age of the mother of the deceased is

erroneous and considering the age of the deceased, the appropriate

multiplier is '18' as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. It is contended that as

the claimants have lost their unmarried son, the claimants, being the

parents of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards

filial consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma

General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru

Ram and others3. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks

enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

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

Insurance Company, respondent No. 2, has contended that as the

deceased was only an Engineering student, the learned Tribunal has

adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no

interference by this Court.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

(2018) 18 SCC 130

7. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident

and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver in causing the accident on 29.01.2005 that resulted in the

death of the deceased. As seen from the record, the claimants-

appellants by marking Ex.A.7, had claimed that the deceased was

studying Engineering Degree II-Year. They also contended that the

deceased was doing private job and earning Rs.5,000/- per month.

However, they have not filed any proof nor examined anybody in this

regard. Considering the age of the deceased, the tribunal has fixed

the annual income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and after

deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased

therefrom and by adopting the multiplier '15' relying on the age of

mother of the deceased, the tribunal has awarded the loss of

dependency at Rs.1,50,000/-. This Court is of the view that since

the deceased was the student of Engineering II-Year, after completion

of the Course, he would have earned a considerable income by

getting decent placement. Therefore, considering Ex.A.7, this Court

is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-.

Since the deceased was 20 years, as per the decision of the Apex

Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), towards future prospects, 40% to the

actual income of the deceased needs to be added. Hence, the future

income of the deceased would be Rs.8,400/- per month (Rs.6,000 +

Rs.2,400 being 40% thereof). As the deceased was bachelor, after

deducting 50% therefrom towards personal expenses of the deceased,

the net monthly future income of the deceased is Rs.4,200/-. As per

the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another4, considering the age of the

deceased as 20 years, the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Therefore,

taking the same into consideration, the total loss of dependency of

the appellants comes to Rs.9,07,200/-. Thus, under the head of loss

of dependency, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.9,07,200/-, as

against Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In addition thereto,

under the conventional heads, as against the amount of Rs.18,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are granted Rs.33,000/- as

per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). That

apart, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Nanu Ram @ Chuhru

Ram (supra), the claimants, being the parents of the deceased, are

granted Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium. Thus, in all, the

compensation is enhanced to Rs.10,20,200/-, as against

Rs.1,68,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.1,68,000/- to Rs.10,20,200/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

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

realization, to be payable by the respondents jointly and severally.

2009 (6) SCC 121

Time for depositing the amount is two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. The amount of compensation shall be

apportioned between the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered

by the Tribunal. On deposit of the amount, the claimants are

entitled to withdraw the said amount. The claimants shall pay deficit

Court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Date: 27.12.2022 tsr

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 1200 of 2014

DATE: -12-2022