B.Nagamani, vs P.Sridhar Reddy,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2465 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1145 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the award and decree, dated 30.08.2012 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.161 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (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, who are the

parents of one B.Pandu (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"), filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for

the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident

that took place on 01.07.2010. It is stated that on the said

date, the deceased was proceeding on Motor Cycle bearing

No.AP 29 BB 1663 3924 from Chowdariguda towards Karmanghat

and when he reached Country Garden, one lorry bearing No.AP

GSD, J Macma_1145_2014

29 V 3953 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at

high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, due to

which the deceased has sustained fatal injuries and died on the

spot. Since the accident occurred only due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry, the claimants filed

the above O.P. against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the

owner and insurer of the aforesaid Lorry.

4. The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

5. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments in

the petition including the manner in which the accident took

place, age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is also

contended that there was no negligence on the part of the

driver of the offending Lorry and that the accident was occurred

only due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It is further

stated that the claimants have to prove that the driver of the

offending lorry was having valid and subsisting driving licence as

on the date of the accident.

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

following issues:

GSD, J Macma_1145_2014

1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in the death of the deceased, B.Pandu, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (Lorry bearing No.AP 29 V 3953 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

7. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A7 and Exs.X1 to X7 were marked. On

behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but

Ex.B1 was marked.

8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that the accident was occurred only due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and

accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.4,83,000/- with interest @

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

realization to be paid by the respondents.

9. Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that the

Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased not the

age of his mother for assessing the loss of dependency in view of

GSD, J Macma_1145_2014

the settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court. It is

further submitted that as per the principles laid down by the

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are also entitled to

future prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the

deceased may be taken into consideration reasonably for

assessing loss of dependency and prayed to enhance the same.

10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Insurance

Company submits that after considering all the aspects i.e.,

age, income and avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal has

rightly granted just compensation, which need not be enhanced.

11. 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 either of the respondents.

12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a

perusal of the impugned award would show that after

considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal

has rightly fixed the annual income of the deceased at

2017 ACJ 2700

GSD, J Macma_1145_2014

Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 24

years, the claimants are also entitled to addition of 40% towards

future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, monthly income of

the deceased comes to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-).

Since the deceased was a bachelor, his personal living expenses

shall be 50% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.4,200/- per month. In

view of the decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain v.

Vipin Kumar Sharma and others2 when the deceased was a

bachelor, the age of the deceased has to be considered while

determining the multiplier and not the age of the mother. As

stated above, the age of the deceased was between 21 to 25

years, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the decision

reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another3. Adopting multiplier '18', his total loss of earnings

would be Rs.4,200/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.9,07,200/-. The claimants

are also entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and

funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Thus, in

all the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,40,200/-.

2015 (6) SCC 347

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GSD, J Macma_1145_2014

13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

enhanced from Rs.4,83,000/- to Rs.9,40,200/-. The enhanced

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

award passed by the Tribunal 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

09.06.2022 gkv

GSD, J Macma_1145_2014