Smt. Kaneez Fatima And 4 Others vs Abdul Aziz And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7018 Tel

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


                       M.A.C.M.A.No.870 of 2016
JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in

the order and decree, dated 20.12.2008 passed in O.P. No.1357 of

2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI

Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the

appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

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:

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- for

the death of one Md. Ismail (hereinafter referred to as "the

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

19.05.2007. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the

deceased, husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant Nos. 2 to 4

& son of claimant No. 5, aged about 50 years, was proceeding on a

motorcycle, along with pillion rider from Bahadurpura to

Puranapool, when the motorcycle reached Pardiwada Bus Stop, the

MGP, J Macma_870_2016

offending vehicle i.e., Tata Lorry bearing No. AP 12T 6845, 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. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple

injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the

deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as owner-cum-driver

and therefore, they laid the claim against the respondents seeking

compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-.

4. Before the tribunal, while the owner of the vehicle,

respondent No. 1 stood ex parte, the insurance company,

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.

5. Considering claim, counter and the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver

and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.4,71,000/- with interest

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

realization to be payable by the respondents jointly and severally.

Challenging the quantum of compensation as meagre, the present

appeal came to be filed by the claimants.

MGP, J Macma_870_2016

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants is that the deceased was owning a lorry which was given

on hire to P.W.3, who used to pay a sum of Rs.800/- per day and

that the deceased himself was driver of heavy goods transport

vehicle as seen from Ex.A.6, driving licence, and that he used to

earn a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. However, without there

being any contra evidence, the tribunal has erroneously fixed the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- which is meagre.

Further, as per the decision of the Apex Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the

claimants are entitled to addition of 15% towards future prospects

to the established income of the deceased.

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

respondent No.2, Insurance company, has contended that in the

absence of producing any evidence, either oral or documentary, to

prove the factum of owning lorry by the deceased, the tribunal has

rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per

month and rightly awarded the just and reasonable compensation

which needs no interference by this Court.

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_870_2016

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. As regards the quantum of compensation, though the

claimants claimed that the deceased was owning a lorry and was

earning Rs.800/- per day by giving it on hire basis to P.W.3 and

though P.W.3 has deposed to that effect, in the absence of filing

any documentary evidence in proof of ownership of the lorry, the

tribunal has rightly disbelieved the said claim, but basing on

Ex.A.6, driving licence of the deceased, accepting the profession of

deceased as driver, fixed his monthly income at Rs.4,500/-. Since

the deceased was a skilled worker, this Court is of the view that

fixation of monthly income at Rs.4,500/- is meagre and needs to be

enhanced. Considering Ex.A.6, this Court fixes the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering the

fact that the deceased was 51 years old at the time of the accident

as reflected in Ex.A2 & A.3, the claimants are entitled to addition

of 15% towards future prospects to the established income, as per

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi

(supra). Therefore, the future monthly income of the deceased

comes to Rs.6,900/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.900/-). From this, 1/4th is

to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased

MGP, J Macma_870_2016

following the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation2, since there are four dependents. After deducting

1/4th therefrom towards his personal and living expenses, the

contribution of the income by the deceased to the family comes to

Rs.5,175/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was 51 years

at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '11' as per

the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma

(supra). Adopting multiplier '11', the total loss of dependency

comes to Rs.5,175/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.6,83,100/-. 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, the claimant No.3 & 4, being the minor children

of the deceased, are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards parental

consortium in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma

General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru

Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.8,40,100/-.

11. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.4,71,000/- to Rs.8,40,100/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

(2018) 18 SCC 130

MGP, J Macma_870_2016

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 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 27.12.2022 Tsr

MGP, J Macma_870_2016

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.870 of 2016

DATE: -12-2022