United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Syed Ahamed 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1298 Tel

            HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

     M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3555 OF 2009 & 3856 OF 2009

COMMON JUDGMENT:
1.   These two appeals are being disposed of by this

common judgment, since M.A.C.M.A.No.3555 of 2009 filed

by the appellants/claimants seeking for enhancement of

the compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.3856 of 2009 filed by

the United India Insurance Company Limited for setting

aside the order of the Tribunal,   are directed against the

very same order and decree, dated 01.09.2009 passed in

O.P.No.1043 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Nizamabad

(for short, "the Tribunal").


     For the sake of convenience, the parties will

hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.


2.   The facts in issue are as under:


     The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 (1)

(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents 1 and

2 seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of

the deceased-Syed Mohin Pasha in a motor vehicle accident

GSD, J MACMA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 3856 of 2009

that occurred on 19.05.2005 due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the Tractor and Trolley bearing

No.AP-25-U-6185 and AP- 25-J-6212.

3. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex

parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the

averments made in the claim-petition.

4. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trolley bearing

No.AP-25-U-6185 and AP-25-J-6212 by its driver and

accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.2,23,200/- as

compensation to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly

and severally. Challenging the quantum of compensation

awarded, the present appeals are filed by the claimants for

enhancement of compensation, while the 2nd respondent-

insurance company for dismissal of appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits

that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal

GSD, J MACMA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 3856 of 2009

is on lower side and prayed to award future prospects in

the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Pranay Sethi's case.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd

respondent-Insurance company contended that the decree

of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and

probabilities of the case; that the Tribunal has erred in

fastening the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company;

that the amount awarded is exorbitant. Accordingly,

prayed for setting aside the impugned order in the O.P and

dismiss the appeal.

7. A perusal of the impugned order 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

tractor by its driver, to which the Tribunal, after

considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the

documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the

accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of

GSD, J MACMA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 3856 of 2009

tractor by its driver and has answered in favour of the

claimants and against the respondents. Further, the

insurance company has not produced any evidence on

record to show that there was no negligence on the part of

the driver of the tractor. 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 tractor.

8. A perusal of the evidence on record would disclose

that the Tribunal, for the purpose of computing the loss of

dependency, considered the income of the deceased at

Rs.2,400/-, which appears to be too meagre, and hence

the income of the deceased is considered at Rs.3,000/- per

month. Further, since the deceased died of bachelor, the

Tribunal taking into consideration of the age of the mother

of the deceased as 54, applied multiplier 11. In view of

the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

GSD, J MACMA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 3856 of 2009

Transport Corporation1 the suitable multiplier would be

'18' as the deceased was 20 years as on the date of

accident. If the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per

month is taken, and, if 40% of the income is added to the

actual income of the deceased towards future prospects,

the total income of the deceased would be Rs.4,200/- per

month. Since the deceased died of bachelor, 50% of the

amount towards his personal and living expenses is to be

deducted, thereby contribution of the deceased would be

Rs.2,100/- per month and Rs.25,200/- per annum.

Applying multiplier '18' the total loss of dependency would

be Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.25,200/- X multiplier '18'). Further,

apart from the said amount, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads such as funeral

expenses and loss of estate. Thus, in all the claimants are

entitled to Rs.4,86,600/-.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J MACMA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 3856 of 2009

9. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.3856 of 2009 filed by the

Insurance Company is dismissed and the M.A.C.M.A.No.3555

of 2009 filed by the claimants is allowed in- part by

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the

Tribunal from Rs.2,23,200/- to Rs.4,86,600/-. The

claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the

enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the

date of realization. The amount of compensation shall be

apportioned amongst the claimants in the ratio as ordered

by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending in these appeals, shall stand closed.

_________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI Date: 21.03.2022 ysk/trr/pgp

GSD, J MACMA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 3856 of 2009

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3555 OF 2009 & 3856 OF 2009

Date: 21.03.2022 ysk/trr/pgp

GSD, J MACMA Nos.3555 of 2009 & 3856 of 2009