Telangana High Court

N. Lakshmi And 4 Others vs M/S Global Technologies, ... on 13 July, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

                THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI
                      MACMA No.853 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is preferred by the petitioners-claimants

assailing the award and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed in O.P.

No.958 of 2007 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Rangareddy

whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.7,47,000/- was

awarded to the petitioners as against the claim of Rs.12.00

lakhs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are

hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are

briefly as follows:

4. On 03.03.2007 Mr.Narsimha (deceased) and his brother

Satyanarayana were approaching on his motorcycle bearing

No.AP 28 N 4810 to Ramalingampally from Keesara village. At

about 7.00 PM when they reached near Peddamma Cheruvu of

Keesara village, a Car bearing No.AP 9 BC 3636 driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the

motorcycle form opposite side and caused accident. Due to

GSD, J Macma_853_2012

which Narasimha and his brother Satyanarayana sustained

injuries. Narasimha was shifted to Polomy hospital in A.S.Rao

Nagar where he had undergone treatment for 26 days and

thereafter he was shifted to Uday Clinic for operation to spinal

card. However, Narasimha succumbed to injuries on

27.04.2007. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.68 of 2007 was

registered under Sections 338 and 304-A of IPC. The case of the

petitioners/claimants is that by the date of accident, the

deceased was aged about 34 years and was earning Rs.5,000/-

p.m. as supervisor of agricultural farm. As on the date of

accident, the offending vehicle which belongs to the first

respondent was insured with the second respondent. First

petitioner is wife, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are children and

petitioner Nos.5 is mother of the deceased and that they are

dependants on the income of the deceased. Hence, the

petitioners filed the petition seeking compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- from the respondents.

5. The first respondent, who is the owner of the crime

vehicle, filed counter denying the mode of accident and liability

without raising any specific plea. The second respondent -

GSD, J Macma_853_2012

insurer filed counter contending that the driver of the

motorcycle was equally responsible for the accident and hence

there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

It was further contended that the amount of compensation

claimed by the petitioners under various heads is highly

excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, this respondent is not

liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence the petition

may be dismissed.

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners P.Ws.1 to

4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf

of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was

adduced.

7. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral, documentary

evidence and other material available on record, arrived at a

conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded

a compensation of Rs.7,47,000/- to the petitioners and against

the respondents with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of realisation. Not being satisfied with the

GSD, J Macma_853_2012

said amount of compensation, the claimants preferred this

appeal.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

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 the respondents.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as

seen from the record, to prove the expenses incurred by the

petitioners towards treatment of the deceased/husband of the

first petitioner/appellant that immediately after the accident the

deceased was shifted to Polomy hospital at A.S.Rao Nagar on

03.03.2007 and that he was under the continuous treatment in

the said hospital till 07.04.2007 on which date he succumbed to

the injuries. To prove that fact, the claimants have examined

the doctor of the said hospital as P.W.3. The claimants also

marked Exs.A.3 and A.10 which are the receipt issued by

Polomi hospital and bunch of medical bills during the course of

evidence of P.W.3. As per Ex.A.10 bunch of medical bills the

appellants have incurred an amount of Rs.4,23,000/-. However,

GSD, J Macma_853_2012

the Tribunal awarded only Rs.50,000/- under the said head.

Since the deceased was in the hospital for the purpose of

treatment for a period more than one month and succumbed to

the injuries on 07.04.2007, there is no reason for the Tribunal

to disbelieve the version of the appellants and to award a

meager amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head 'hospital and

medical treatment'. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to

Rs.4,23,000/- towards hospital and medical treatment of the

deceased.

11. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.5,000/-. The age of the deceased was 34 years

as on the date of accident. There is no dispute with regard to

the income and age of the deceased.

12. A perusal of the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, it

appears that the deceased had left five dependents. The

Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the

deceased instead of 1/4th.

GSD, J Macma_853_2012

13. In the light of the ratio laid down in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 if 40% of

the income is added towards future prospects, the monthly

income of the deceased would come to Rs.7,000/- p.m. if 1/4th

is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, his

contribution to the family would come to Rs.5,250/- per month.

14. Since the deceased was aged about 34 years, in the light

of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation2, the actual multiplier 16 is

applied, loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,250/- X 12 X

16 = 10,08,000/-.

15. Apart from the same, the appellants are also entitled to a

tune of Rs.77,000/- as compensation under conventional heads

as per the case of pranay Sethi (1 supra). So the appellants

are entitled to Rs.10,08,000/- + Rs.77,000/- + Rs.4,23,000/- =

Rs.15,08,000/-.

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_853_2012

16. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of

Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of

compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim

made which is impermissible under law.

17. 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."

18. 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

3 (2011) 10 SCC 756 4 2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_853_2012

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.

19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from

Rs.7,46,000/- to Rs.15,08,000/- The enhanced amount will