Telangana High Court

Alakuntla Ailamma And 5 Others vs M/S Vijayanand Road Lines ... on 15 March, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

                  HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.2831 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the award and decree, dated 13.02.2007 passed in

O.P.No.10 of 2004 on the file of the on the file of the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge),

Nalgonda (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. The facts, in issue, are as under:

4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the

death of one Alakuntla Yellaiah (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated

that on 15.06.2003 at about 5.30 P.M., the deceased and his wife

were proceeding on the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 34

T/R, when they reached Nagaram Bangla outskirts, one DCM Van

GSD, J Macma_2831_2008

bearing No.AP 09 V 9812 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle, as a result of

which, the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries all

over the body and died on the spot. The wife of the deceased also

sustained grievous fracture injuries. It is also stated that the

deceased was hale and healthy and was doing fruit business in

Riyad, Arab Country and used to earn Rs.45,000/- per month.

Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the DCM Van, the claimants filed aforesaid O.P.

against respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of

aforesaid Van, respectively, claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

5. Before the Tribunal the 1st respondent filed counter denying

all the allegations in the petition. The 2nd respondent filed counter

putting the claimants to the strict proof of the rashness and

negligence attributed to the driver of DCM Van and its involvement

in the accident. It is also denied the age, income and avocation of

the deceased. It is further stated that the amount claimed is

excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

GSD, J Macma_2831_2008

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

following issues:-

1. Whether the deceased Alakuntla Yellaiah died in the road accident? If so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM Van bearing No.AP 09 V 9812 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the death of deceased? If so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1

to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was

examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

8. 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 DCM Van

and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.3,93,500/- with interest

@ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and

GSD, J Macma_2831_2008

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

filed by the claimants seeking enhancement.

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. A perusal of the impugned judgment 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 Van by its driver,

to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1

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 DCM Van and has answered in

favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore,

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 the DCM Van.

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

the claimants claimed that the deceased was doing fruit business in

Riyad, Arab Country and earning Rs.45,000/- per month, but the

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

stating that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the

GSD, J Macma_2831_2008

deceased was earning Rs.45,000/- per month. As per Ex.A6,

original passport of the deceased would show that the deceased

was visiting Riyad during his life time and the evidence of P.W.1

would show that the deceased was residing in Riyad and he was

doing fruit business in Riyad. Therefore, this Court is of the

opinion that the deceased must have earned atleast Rs.5,000/- per

month. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others1, the claimants are also entitled to addition of 40% towards

future prospects. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased

comes to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2000/-). From this, 1/4th is

to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased

following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the

dependents are six in number. After deducting 1/4th amount

towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the

deceased to the family would be Rs.5,250/- per month. Since the

age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '15' as per the decision reported in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra). Adopting

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_2831_2008

multiplier '15', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.5,250/- x

12 x 15 = Rs.9,45,000/-. 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.10,22,000/-.

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

submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as

compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now

awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible

under law.

13. 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."