Parbati Parida Parvathi Parida, ... vs The G.M., Apsrtc, Hyd
2022 Latest Caselaw 2677 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1056 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 02.04.2012 passed in

O.P.No.438 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, 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

mother and younger sister of one Saniranjan Parida @

Samirajan Parida (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"),

filed a claim-petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-

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

accident that took place on 13.02.2011. It is stated that on

13.02.2011 at about 6.30 p.m., while the deceased was walking

on the left side of the road and when he reached at the

outskirts of Velminedu village, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28

GSD, J Macma_1056_2014

Z 3354 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at

high speed and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased

sustained injuries and died on the spot. It is also stated that

prior to the accident the deceased was working as Operator in

Ratna Agro Chemicals, Veliminedu village and earning

Rs.6,000/- per month and used to contribute the entire amount

for the welfare of the family. It is further stated that due to

sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their source

of income and therefore they filed the above claim-petition

against the respondent-R.T.C.

4. The 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 R.T.C. bus. It is further contended that the

compensation claimed is high and excessive and prayed to

dismiss the claim-petition.

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

following issues:

GSD, J Macma_1056_2014

1) Whether the deceased by name S.Paridha died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 3354?

2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

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

examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the

respondent, neither oral nor documentary evidence was

adduced.

7. 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 R.T.C. bus and

accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- with interest @

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

realization to be paid by the respondent.

8. 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

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

further submitted that as per the principles laid down by the

GSD, J Macma_1056_2014

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.

9. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the R.T.C.

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.

10. 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.

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

case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as

SuOperator in Ratna Agro Chemicals. Considering the age and

avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the

income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. As per Ex.A3-

post mortem examination report, the deceased was aged about

2017 ACJ 2700

GSD, J Macma_1056_2014

21 years at the time of accident. Hence, 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.5,600/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1,600/-). Since the deceased was a

bachelor, his personal living expenses shall be 50% of the said

amount, i.e., Rs.2,800/- 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.2,800/- x 12

x 18 = Rs.6,04,800/-. 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.6,37,800/-.

2015 (6) SCC 347

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GSD, J Macma_1056_2014

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

enhanced from Rs.3,80,000/- to Rs.6,37,800/-. The enhanced

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

order 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

14.06.2022 gkv