Kona Ponnala Durgaiah Another vs Syed Viquar Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3387 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3387 Tel
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2022

Telangana High Court

Kona Ponnala Durgaiah Another vs Syed Viquar Another on 5 July, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1058 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 10.03.2010 passed in

O.P.No.899 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional District and

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Kamareddy (for

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

present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter

be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants are the

parents of one Kona Mahesh (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"). It is the case of the claimants that on 28.03.2004

while the deceased was proceeding in auto bearing No.AP 25 U

5155 to have darshan of Sri Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Temple and

when the auto reached near Bhavanipet village, the driver of

the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high

speed, due to which the auto turned turtle and the deceased

died and other inmates of the auto sustained injuries. The

GSD, J Macma_1018_2014

deceased is the only son of the claimants and therefore, the

claimants filed the aforesaid O.P.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained

ex parte.

5. The 2nd respondent filed counter putting the claimant to

strict proof of allegations made in the claim-petition and also

denied the other allegations made in the claim-petition.

6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was

examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Exs.B1 to B3

were marked.

7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.51,500/- with interest @

6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and

severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been

filed by the claimants.

GSD, J Macma_1018_2014

8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in

view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various

decisions, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal.

9. There is no dispute with regard to the accident in

question and involvement of the offending vehicle. The

negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle is also

not disputed. The vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent.

10. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about four years at

the time of accident. In Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala

and others1 the Apex Court having considered the grant of

compensation in similar circumstances, has awarded an amount

of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of a 10 year old boy. Recently, in

Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu2 the

Apex Court has awarded an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- by fixing

the notional income of the deceased boy, who was aged about

10 years, at Rs.25,000/- and multiplied by '15'.

(2014) 1 SCC 244

Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_1018_2014

11. In the instant case, the deceased was four years old boy.

In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias

Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu (2 supra) and having

regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just

and proper to award a compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- to the

claimants.

12. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of

compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim

made, which is impermissible under law.

13. 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

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_1018_2014

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."

14. 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.

15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

enhanced from Rs.51,500/- to Rs.4,70,000/-. The enhanced

amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order

passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization. The 2nd