M Nagamani Nagamma vs The Divisional Controller,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2466 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2466 Tel
Judgement Date : 9 June, 2022

Telangana High Court

M Nagamani Nagamma vs The Divisional Controller, on 9 June, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1104 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 07.10.2011 in O.P.No.110

of 2009 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge,

Mahabubnagar (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. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one M.Srisailam @

Bandigaiah (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died

in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 10.12.2008 the

deceased boarded the bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 7840 to go to his

village and after the deceased boarded into the bus, the driver of

the bus without ensuring that the door was properly closed, drew

the bus in high speed and rash and negligent manner, due to which

the deceased fell down from the door of the bus on the road and

GSD, J Macma_1104_2014

sustained grievous injuries and he was succumbed to injuries. It is

also stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and was

earning Rs.60,000/- per month as he was a driver by profession and

also doing agriculture.

4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent filed counter denying

the manner in which the accident took place including the age,

avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the

quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless and

prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

following issues:-

1. Whether the accident occurred on 10.12.2008 at about 4.15 P.M. was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 7840?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation form the respondent and if so what amount?

3. To what relief?

GSD, J Macma_1104_2014

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

Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, neither

oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was

occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C.

bus and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.3,96,000/- with

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

realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be

filed by the claimants seeking enhancement.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. A perusal of the impugned order 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 R.T.C. bus by its

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 R.T.C. bus and has answered

in favour of the claimants and against the respondent. Therefore,

GSD, J Macma_1104_2014

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 R.T.C. bus.

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

the claimants claimed that the deceased was a driver and also

doing agriculture and earning Rs.60,000/- per annum, the Tribunal

has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- as the

claimants did not produce any proof to show that the deceased was

earning Rs.60,000/- per annum. The record reveals that the

deceased was a driver by profession. Therefore, this Court inclined

to take the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. 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

others1. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1800/-). From this, 1/4th is to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. After deducting

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_1104_2014

1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the

contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.4,725/- per

month. Since the age of the deceased was 30 years at the time of

the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '17' as per the decision

reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

(2 supra). Adopting multiplier '17', the total loss of dependency

would be Rs.4,725/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.9,63,900/-. 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.10,40,900/-.

11. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company

submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as

compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now

awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible

under law.

12. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another3, the Apex

(2011) 10 SCC 756

GSD, J Macma_1104_2014

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."

13. 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.

14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from

Rs.3,96,000/- to Rs.10,40,900/-. The enhanced amount will carry

interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)