Telangana High Court

Marla Laxmi 6 Ors vs V.Prabhakar Anr on 1 February, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.5537 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the judgment and decree, dated 05.01.2007 passed in

O.P.No.368 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for

short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the

present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

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.3,00,000/- for the

death of the deceased-Marla Narsimhulu @ Narsimha, who died in a

motor vehicle accident that took place on 02.05.2004. It is stated

that on the said date the deceased was going to Boduppal from

Mogilipaka Village of Valigonda Mandal in a Taxicab (Jeep) bearing

No.AP 24 V 0479 and when they reached Narapally bus stop, one

Oil Tanker bearing No.AIJ 6939 dashed the Jeep while negotiating a

curve toward Warangal Side by crossing the middle line of the

road, due to which, the deceased fell down from the jeep,

sustained head injury and he was succumbed to injuries while

undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. On a

complaint, a case in Crime No.84 of 2004 has been registered

against the driver of the Oil Tanker. It is stated that prior to the

accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning

Rs.3,500/- per month as agriculture labourer-cum-shepherd. On

account of death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source

of income. The 1st respondent being the owner of the vehicle and

the 2nd respondent being insurer of the Oil Tanker are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation.

The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the manner in

which the accident took place, rash and negligent driving of the Oil

Tanker. It is also disputed that the driver of the Oil Tanker was

having valid driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle

was road worthy to ply.

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the deceased Marla Narsimhulu died due to rash and negligent driving of the Tanker bearing No.AIJ 6939?

2) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation from whom?

3) To what relief.

During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

After analyzing the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that there was 50% negligence on the part of the

driver of the Oil Tanker and 50% negligence on the part of the

driver of the Jeep, in which the deceased was traveling and

accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- with interest @

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

realization to be paid by the respondents.

Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the

Tribunal erred in holding that there was 50% contributory

negligence on the part of the driver of the Jeep in which the

deceased was traveling. It is also submitted that though the

deceased was getting Rs.3,500/- per month, the Tribunal erred in

fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month. It is

further submitted that as per the principles laid down by the Apex

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others1, the claimants are also entitled to the future

prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the deceased

may be taken into consideration reasonably for assessing loss of

dependency and prayed to enhance the same.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company

submits that the income of the deceased has rightly been taken by

the Tribunal as Rs.1,500/- per month since no documents have

been produced to prove the income of the deceased. On the point

of future prospects, learned Counsel submits that the matter has

been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (1 supra) and as

2017 ACJ 2700

per that judgment, the claimants are entitled 40% amount towards

future prospects. It is further submitted that the compensation

towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly granted by the

Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced. It is also submitted

that the Tribunal has rightly fixed 50% contributory negligence on

the part of the driver of the jeep in which the deceased was

traveling, which needs no interference.

Insofar as the contributory negligence is concerned, as per

the contents of Ex.A3-charge sheet, there is head on collision

between the Jeep and Oil Tanker, which are coming in opposite

direction. P.W.2 deposed that both the vehicles are coming from

opposite direction and the accident took place when the drivers of

both the vehicles are negligent. Taking into consideration the

evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A3, the Tribunal has held that

the drivers of the both the vehicles are equally responsible for the

accident and hence, the said finding is found to be proper and

correct. Therefore this Court does not call for any interference on

this aspect.

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

though the claimants claimed that the deceased was working as

Shephard and earning Rs.3,500/- per month but no proof of income

has been filed. In catena of decisions the Apex Court held that

even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably

estimated minimum at Rs.3,000/- per month for any non-earning

member. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the income of

the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. Apart from the same, the

claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects,

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

(1 supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-). From this, 1/4th is to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents

are six in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his

personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to

the family would be Rs.3,150/- per month and Rs.37,800/- per

annum. Since the age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of

the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '17' as per the decision

reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

(2 supra). Adopting multiplier '17', the total loss of dependency

would be Rs.37,800/- x 17, which comes to Rs.6,42,600/-. The

claimants are also entitled to Rs.70,000/- under the conventional

heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Thus, in all the

claimants are entitled to Rs.7,12,600/-. Since the claimants did

not implead the owner and insurer of the Jeep in which the

deceased was traveling and that there was a contributory

negligence of 50% on the part of the driver of the jeep, the

claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,56,300/- towards 50% of

the compensation.

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company

submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now

awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible

under law.

In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another3, the Apex

Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4 held as

under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to

above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what

has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a

beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants

is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour

to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable

extent.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced

from Rs.1,02,000/- to Rs.3,56,300/-. The enhanced amount will

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

(2011) 10 SCC 756