Telangana High Court
Smtt.P.Leelamma Anr vs Md.Jahangir Anr on 23 June, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.216 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded in the order and decree, dated 14.05.2010 passed in
O.P.No.1881 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
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
wife and daughter of one P.Narasimha (hereinafter referred to
as "the deceased") filed a petition, claiming compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a
motor vehicle accident that took place on 04.08.2008. It is
stated that on 04.08.2008 while the deceased was proceeding
on his scooter and when he reached in front of Manneguda
Petrol Pump, Hayathnagar Mandal, Cyberabad, one Mahendra
GSD, J
Macma_216_2014
Max bearing No.AP 28 N 7403 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner at high speed and dashed the scooter, due to
which the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and died on
the spot. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased
was hale and healthy and was working as Lorry Driver and
earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On account of death of the
deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income. The 1st
respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being
insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable
to pay compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, 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
stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
deceased and as such the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the
compensation.
GSD, J
Macma_216_2014
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the deceased died in the accident on
04.08.2009 due to rash and negligent driving of driver
of Mahendra Max bearing No.AP 4U 4016?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation? If so from whom?
3) To what relief?
7. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2
were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the
respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was
marked.
8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the
Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Mahendra Max vehicle and
accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.3,74,000/- with interest @
7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the
same, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement.
GSD, J
Macma_216_2014
9. Learned Counsel for the claimants would submit 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 the future prospects and also
Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads.
10. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent would
submit that the issue with regard to the future prospects has
been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (1 supra) and
as per that judgment, the claimants are entitled 40% amount
towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the
compensation towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly
granted by the Tribunal and the same 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 the respondents.
12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
record reveals that the deceased was aged about 38 years and
2017 ACJ 2700
GSD, J
Macma_216_2014
was working as Lorry Driver. Therefore, considering the age and
avocation of the deceased, this Court inclined to fix the income
of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. Apart from the same,
the claimants are 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/-). From
this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living
expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/3rd amount
towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the
deceased to the family would be Rs.3,733/- per month. Since
the age of the deceased was 38 years at the time of the
accident, the appropriate multiplier is '15' as per the decision
reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another2. Adopting multiplier 15, his total loss of earnings
would be Rs.3,733/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.6,71,940/-. The claimants
are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- towards loss of estate, funeral
expenses and loss of consortium, as per Pranay Sethi's case
(1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to
Rs.7,48,940/-.
(2009) 6 SCC 121
GSD, J
Macma_216_2014
13. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance
company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of
Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of
compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim
made which is impermissible under law.
14. 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."
15. 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
(2011) 10 SCC 756
2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
GSD, J
Macma_216_2014
claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always
endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and
reasonable extent.
16. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation
amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from
Rs.3,74,000/- to Rs.7,48,940/-. The enhanced amount will carry
interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the
Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents
1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall be
apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal.
However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on
the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________
JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
23.06.2022
gkv
GSD, J
Macma_216_2014
