Smt Zareena 4 Ors vs Ch. Madhava Reddy 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3500 Tel

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.1646 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 18.04.2007 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Warangal

(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 be

hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one Mohd. Jilaani (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased"). It is stated that on 06.04.2005

the claimants, along with the deceased, and other family

members were went to picnic to the Mango Garden situated at

Punnelu Village. In the afternoon, the deceased, along with his

brother-Khaja Pasha and another, went to hotel situated near

Inavolu Arch on Warangal-Khammam highway for purchasing

GSD, J Macma_1646_2007

curd and after purchasing curd they were returning to the place,

one lorry bearing No.AP 36 V 9953 driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the deceased

and his brother, due to which, they fell down and sustained

injuries and they succumbed to injuries while undergoing

treatment in M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. As the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

Lorry, the claimants filed the claim-petition against the

respondents 1 to 3, being the owner and insurers of the said

Lorry, respectively. Considering the claim and the counter filed

by the 3rd respondent, and on evaluation of the evidence, both

oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed

the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.8,06,000/- with

interest at 7.5% per annum. Challenging the same, the present

appeal has been filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the

Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry by its

GSD, J Macma_1646_2007

driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of

P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence, has

categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and has

answered in favour of the claimants and against the

respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the

finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry.

6. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

though the claimants claimed that the deceased was an auto

driver and he was also running an auto consultancy and earning

Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the income of

the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. Taking into

consideration the age and avocation of the deceased i.e., he

was an auto driver by profession and was also running auto

consultancy, this Court inclined to take the income of the

deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month. Apart from the same, the

claimants are also entitled to addition of 40% towards future

prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

GSD, J Macma_1646_2007

others1. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.10,500/- (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.3,000/-). From this, 1/4th is to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the claimants

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

personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased

to the family would be Rs.7,875/- per month. Since the age of

the deceased was 30 years at the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '16' as per the decision reported in

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra).

Adopting multiplier '16', the total loss of dependency would be

Rs.7,875/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.15,12,000/-. The claimants are also

entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per

Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are

entitled to Rs.15,89,000/-.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

enhanced from Rs.8,06,000/- to Rs.15,89,000/-. The enhanced

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_1646_2007

amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from today till the date

of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the

manner as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 07.07.2022 gkv

GSD, J Macma_1646_2007

1. The order and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary

to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

2. The tribunal ought to have granted the compensation

claimed by the appellants instead of awarding compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. While granting compensation, the Tribunal ought to have

taken into consideration the age and avocation of the deceased.

As per National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others (2017 ACJ 2700) the Tribunal ought to have awarded

Rs.77,000/- towards conventional heads.

4. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case the

Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th amount as the claimants are five in

number but the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal

and living expenses of the deceased.

5. The Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier at 11 instead of 9.

6. The other grounds will be urged at the time of the hearing of the

appeal.

GSD, J Macma_1646_2007