Rayagiri Laxmi And 5 Others vs G. Srinivasgoud And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 711 Tel

            THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No. 2898 of 2008

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the Claimants, aggrieved of the

order and decree dated 04.09.2007 in O.P. No. 911 of 2006 on

the file of the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.

2. On 30.03.2006, at about 7:20 p.m. while the deceased-

Rayagiri Shankaraiah, was going to Bhongir in RTC Bus bearing

No. AP 10Z 7452, and when the Bus reached outskirts of Gudur

Village, the offending vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No. AAA 5139,

owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent

No. 2, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at

high speed, dashed against the RTC Bus, resulting in the

instantaneous death of the deceased. According to the

claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as

auto driver and was aged about 30 years at the time of the

accident. Therefore, the claimants made a claim for Rs.4.00

lakhs.

3. The Tribunal, on examining the oral evidence of PW.1 to

PW6, and documentary evidence, Exs.A-1 to A-5 and B-1 & B-2,

allowed the O.P. awarding a total compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs

along with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization, to be paid by the respondent

GSD, J MACMA.No.2898 of 2008

Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within two months from the date

of said order. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded, the appellants-claimants have filed this appeal.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-

claimants that although the claimants restricted the claim for

Rs.4.00 lakhs, as they are entitled more than the amount

claimed, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the just

compensation keeping in mind the fact that the Motor Vehicles

Act is a social welfare legislation. The amounts granted by the

Tribunal towards loss of estate, loss of consortium are meagre

and needs enhancement. Therefore, the learned counsel

prayed for enhancement of compensation.

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

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

compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is excessive and

exorbitant. The claim itself was made for Rs.4.00 lakhs and as

the total amount was granted by the Tribunal, no interference is

called for by this Court.

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

accident and the rash and negligent driving on the part of the

driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident. As

GSD, J MACMA.No.2898 of 2008

regards the quantum of compensation awarded, it is the

evidence of P.Ws.1,3,4,5 & 6 that the deceased was working as

auto driver and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. But,

without taking into consideration the said evidence, the learned

Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per

month, which is very meagre. Therefore, this Court is of the

view that the income of the deceased must be Rs.4,500/- per

month. As per the decision of the Apex Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1,

towards future prospects, 40% needs to be added to the said

income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly future income

of the deceased can be fixed at Rs.6,300/-. Since the deceased

was having six dependants, after deducting 1/4th therefrom

towards personal expenses of the deceased, the net monthly

income comes to Rs.4,725/- and the annual income that may

be contributed to the family comes to Rs.56,700/-. Admittedly,

the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of death, and

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

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

Corporation2. Thus, the loss of dependency is fixed at

Rs.9,63,900 (Rs.56,700/- x 17). In addition to that, under the

conventional heads i.e., loss of consortium, estate and funeral

2017 ACJ 2700

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GSD, J MACMA.No.2898 of 2008

expenses, the appellants-claimants are granted Rs.77,000/- as

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

Thus, in all, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.10,40,900/-,

as against Rs.4,00,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.10,40,900/-. The enhanced amount shall

carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order passed by the

Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1

and 2 jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall

be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio as ordered by

the Tribunal. The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee on the

enhanced compensation, since the claim was for Rs.4,00,000/-.

If the deficit court fee is not paid as per Rule 475 of M.V.Rules

before the Tribunal, the claimants are not entitled for execution

of Award in respect of enhanced compensation. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI Date: 17.02.2022

tsr

GSD, J MACMA.No.2898 of 2008

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 2898 of 2008

DATE: 17-02-2022