Shaik Moin Miya, Nizamabad 8 ... vs A Mahesh, Nizamabad Dist Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 3161 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3161 Tel
Judgement Date : 30 June, 2022

Telangana High Court

Shaik Moin Miya, Nizamabad 8 ... vs A Mahesh, Nizamabad Dist Anr on 30 June, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1825 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 08.06.2015 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.395 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (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

husband and children of one Smt. Waheeda Bee (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

08.06.2010. It is stated that on that day while the deceased

was crossing the road near bus stand, Metpally, one Tipper

bearing No.AP 13 X 6332 driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the

deceased, due to which she sustained bleeding injuries and she

GSD, J Macma_1825_2015

succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. It is

stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and

healthy and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as

beedi roller. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and

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

the claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the

owner and insurer of the Tipper, respectively.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained

ex parte.

5. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the

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

that the claimants did not furnish the copy of insurance policy

and that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to

dismiss the petition.

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

following issues:

1) Whether Smt. Waheeda Bee died of the injuries received in the accident occurred on 08.06.2010 at about 14.00 hours near new bus stand, Metpally?

GSD, J Macma_1825_2015

2) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper bearing No.AP 13 X 6332 by its driver?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

4) To what relief?

7. On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined

and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. 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 on account of rash and

negligent driving of the Tipper by its driver and accordingly

awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, to be

paid by the respondents 1 and 2. Challenging the quantum of

compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the

appellants along with an application seeking amendment of the

compensation claimed from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-.

9. Heard and perused the record.

GSD, J Macma_1825_2015

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 either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.

11. A perusal of the material available on record would show

that the appellants claimed that the deceased was a beedi

roller and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but no

documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants.

Considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal

has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per

month.

12. Insofar as the future prospects are concerned to the

housewives, the Apex Court recently in Kirti and another etc.

v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.1 made certain general

observations regarding the issue of calculation of notional

income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with

respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation,

which can be summarized as follows:

AIR 2021 SC 353

GSD, J Macma_1825_2015

"a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.

b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.

c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.

e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation."

GSD, J Macma_1825_2015

13. In view of above said decision, the appellants shall be

entitled to future prospects at the rate of 25%. Therefore,

monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,000/-

(Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1000/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. After deducting 1/4th

amount towards his personal and living expenses, the

contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.3,750/-

per month. Since the deceased was aged about 45 years at the

time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier would be '14'

as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation (2 supra). Adopting multiplier '14', the total loss

of dependency would be Rs.3,750/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.6,30,000/-.

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.7,07,000/-.

14. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the quantum of compensation which is

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_1825_2015

now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is

impermissible under law.

15. 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."

16. 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

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_1825_2015

endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and

reasonable extent.

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

amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from