Marati Narasaiah Another vs Rayala Krishna Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3012 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1420 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the award and decree, dated 20.08.2014 passed in

M.A.T.O.P.No.346 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Judge), Kothagudem (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 Marati Kiran Kumar (hereinafter referred to as

"the deceased") filed a petition, claiming compensation of

Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a

motor vehicle accident that took place on 01.01.2011. It is

stated that on 01.01.2011 the deceased was returning to his

house on Hero Honda Cycle bearing No.AP 10 AB 7963 and when

he reached near Hanuman Statue, Vidyanagar Colony on R & B

Road, one Lorry bearing No.AP 20 Y 8787 driven by its driver in a

GSD, J Macma_1420_2015

rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor

cycle, due to which the deceased fell down, received fatal

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

accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was working

as Private Security Guard and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

On account of the 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.

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

following issues:

GSD, J Macma_1420_2015

1) Whether the accident occurred on 01.01.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 20 Y 8787 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

7. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2

were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents, R.W.1 was examined and 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 Lorry and accordingly

awarded an amount of Rs.4,28,000/- 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.

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

2017 ACJ 2700

GSD, J Macma_1420_2015

claimants are also entitled to the future prospects and also

Rs.33,000/- 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,

though the claimants claimed that the deceased was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month by working as Private Security Guard, the

Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per

month. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 27 years at

GSD, J Macma_1420_2015

the time of the accident and he is an able bodied person.

Considering the age and avocation of the deceased, this Court

inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- 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.6,300/-

(Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). From this, 50% is to be deducted

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased since the

deceased was a bachelor. After deducting 50% amount towards

his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the

deceased to the family would be Rs.3,150/- per month. Since

the age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of the

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

reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another2. Adopting multiplier 17, his total loss of earnings

would be Rs.3,150/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.6,42,600/-. 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.6,75,600.00.

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GSD, J Macma_1420_2015

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

enhanced from Rs.4,28,000/- to Rs.6,75,600/-. 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.

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_1420_2015