The National Isnruance Company ... vs Ayyavaripalle Anitha And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3872 Tel

              THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
                              AND
        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

              M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1357 and 2465 of 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice G. Sridevi)

      These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1357 of 2008 filed by the

petitioners/claimants    seeking     enhancement     of    the

compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No. 2465 of 2008 filed by the

National Insurance Company Limited, are directed against the

very same order and decree, dated 31.08.2007 passed in

O.P.No.190 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for

short "the Tribunal").

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 petitioners, who are

the wife, children and parents of one Ayyavaaripalle Shiva

Reddy (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of the
                                  2
                                                     GSD, J and MGP, J
                                             Macma_1357 and 2465_2008

deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident.            It is stated

that on 18.06.2005 while the deceased was proceeding in Toyota

Qualis Van bearing No.AP 28 V 1577 from Kukatpally towards

Rajahmundry and when they reached the outskirts of Reddy

Bavi, the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the vehicle

and dashed to a parked lorry from its behind, due to which, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to

injuries while undergoing treatment. It is also stated that the

deceased was hale and healthy and was working as Commission

Agent in Saket Financial Services and earning Rs.25,000/- per

month and due to sudden demise of the deceased, the

petitioners lost their source of income.           As the accident

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

Toyota Qualis Van, the petitioners filed the claim-petition

against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer

of the aforesaid Toyota Qualis Van, respectively.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained

ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying

the averments made in the claim-petition and putting the

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_1357 and 2465_2008

appellants to strict proof of the same. It is specifically stated

that the claim-petition is bad for non-joinder of the driver,

owner and insurer of Lorry bearing No.AP 23 T 6363 for parking

the lorry negligently on the road. It is also contended that the

accident was occurred only due to the wrongful and negligent

act of the driver of the Lorry in parking the Lorry and as such,

the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:-

1. Whether the accident resulting in death of Ayyavaaripalle Shiva Reddy occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tayota Qualis Van bearing No.AP 28 V 1577?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from whom? And

3. To what relief?

6. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A19 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of

the respondents, no oral documentary evidence was adduced

but Ex.B1-copy of Insurance Policy was marked.

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_1357 and 2465_2008

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was

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

the Toyota Qualis Van and accordingly awarded an amount of

Rs.20,63,000/- 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. Challenging the

same, the present appeals came to be filed by the petitioners

and the 2nd respondent-0Insurance Company respectively.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. A perusal of the impugned award 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 Toyota Qualis

Van by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the

evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A2 and A4, has categorically

observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Toyota Qualis Van and has

answered in favour of the petitioners and against the

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

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_1357 and 2465_2008

finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Toyota Qualis

Van.

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

Tribunal has rightly taken the annual income of the deceased at

Rs.1,68,840/- basing on the income tax returns filed by the

deceased before his death for the year 2003-2004. Apart from

the same, the petitioners are 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 others1. Therefore, annual income of the

deceased comes to Rs. 2,36,376/- (Rs.1,68,840/- + Rs.67,536/-).

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 five in number instead of

1/3rd as deducted by the Tribunal. After deducting 1/4th amount

towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the

deceased to the family would be Rs.1,77,282/- per annum.

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_1357 and 2465_2008

Since the deceased was aged about 28 years, in view the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation (2 supra) the suitable multiplier would be '17'.

Applying multiplier '17' the total loss of dependency would be

Rs.1,77,282/- x 17 = Rs.30,13,794/-. The petitioners are also

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

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

entitled to Rs.30,90,794/-.

11. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1357 of 2008 filed by the

petitioners is hereby allowed in part and M.A.C.M.A.No.2465 of

2008 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. The amount

awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from

Rs.20,63,000/- to Rs.30,90,794/-. In view of the judgment of

the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.

Birender and others3, the enhanced amount will carry an

interest of 9% p.a. from the date of passing of award passed by

the Tribunal i.e., from 31.08.2007 till the date of realization.

The respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced

compensation amount within two months from the date of

AIR 2020 SC 434

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_1357 and 2465_2008

receipt of a copy of this judgment. 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.

____________ G. SRI DEVI, J

_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 26.07.2022 Tsr/gkv