Smt.P.Venkata Lakshmi 4 Ors vs Andhe Ramesh Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5544 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1600 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the award dated 07.07.2015

in M.V.O.P.No.394 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said

claim application filed by appellants herein seeking compensation

was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.28,95,599/-, as

against the claimed amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, with interest @

7.5% per annum from the date of petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel

for the respondent No.2-insurance company. None appeared for

respondent No.1. Perused the material on record.

3. Appellants herein filed claim application seeking

compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of death of the

deceased P. Kistaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 02.08.2013. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant No.2

is the son and claimants 3 and 4 are the daughters and appellant

No.5 is the mother of the deceased. According to the claimants, on

that day, while the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on

motorcycle bearing No.AP 23AE 2468 from Yensonpalli Village

towards Yellupalli and when they reached near M.P.D.O Office on

outer ring road, Siddipet, the rider of the said motorcycle drove

it in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed to

the water manual on the road side due to which the deceased

fell down from the motorcycle and received grievous injuries,

besides other injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was

shifted to Government Hospital, Siddipet and from there to Gandhi

Hospital, Secunderabad and thereafter to Oxygen Hospital, Alwal,

Hyderabad. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on

05.08.2013. A case was registered against the rider of the

motorcycle in Cr.No.195 of 2013 for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A IPC by Siddipet Town P.S. According to the

claimants, the deceased was aged 54 years and working as a

Mechanic in APSRTC, Siddipet Depot and was getting a salary of

Rs.20,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the

welfare and maintenance of the family.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 -

insurance company filed counter opposing the claim and denying

its liability to pay the compensation.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the

following issues for trial:

(i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.AP 23AE 2468 causing death of P. Kistaiah?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation?

If so, to what extent and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A8 were marked, apart from Exs.X1 to X4, on behalf of

the claimants. Respondent No.2 did not choose to adduce any

evidence, but a copy of the policy was marked as Ex.B1 by

consent.

7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider. The said finding

has become final, as no appeal is preferred by the insurer

questioning the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimants

were entitled for a total compensation of Rs.28,95,599/- with

interest at 7.5% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants filed the

present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.

8. The only question that arises for consideration in this present

appeal is - whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of

compensation, and if so, to what extent?

9. It is not in dispute that claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant

No.2 is the son and claimants 3 and 4 are the daughters and

appellant No.5 is the mother of the deceased. According to the

claimants, the deceased was working as Mechanic in APSRTC and

getting a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. The Tribunal considered

the oral evidence of PW3 and by relying on Ex.X2, held that the

deceased P. Kistaiah was getting a salary of Rs.18,643/- per month

and as per the service register of the individual vide Ex.X4,

the date of birth of the deceased is recorded as 09-07-1964 and

thereby as on the date of death of the deceased in the alleged

accident on 02.08.2013, he was '49' years. The Tribunal has taken

into consideration of the income of the deceased at Rs.18,643/- and

added 30% towards future prospects and arrived at the notional

income of Rs.24,235/- per month which is equal to Rs.2,90,830/-

(Rs.24,235/- x 12) per annum. After deducting

1/4th towards personal expenses arrived at an amount of

Rs.2,18,123/- (Rs.2,90,830/- - Rs.72,702/- i.e., 1/4th of

Rs.2,90,830/-) and by applying the multiplier '13' held that the

claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.28,35,599/-

(Rs.2,18,123/- x 13) towards loss of dependency. The said award

of compensation is just and reasonable and needs no interference.

10. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.20,000/- towards funeral

expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.20,000/-

towards loss of consortium and the same are hereby modified as

per the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI

AND OTHERS1 and MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED v. NANU RAM @ CHUHRU RAM2'.

Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for an amount of

2017 ACJ 2700 2 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of

consortium to claimant No.1 and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

funeral expenses, making up a total of Rs.70,000/- towards

conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Further,

claimant Nos.2 to 4, who are children of the deceased, are entitled

for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each/- i.e., total Rs.1,20,000/-

towards parental consortium and claimant No.5, mother of the

deceased, is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards filial

consortium as per Magma's case (2 supra).

11. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, the claimants

are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.30,65,599/-

(Rs.28,35,599/- + 70,000/- + 1,20,000/- + 40,000/-) with interest at

7.5% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is

modified, accordingly,

12. Thus, the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of

Rs. 30,65,599/-. However, the claimants in the claim petition

sought compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- only. The award of

compensation now awarded is more than the amount claimed

towards compensation and the same can be awarded by this court

when it is considered to be the just and compensation in view of

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs.

Gurudayal Singh3.

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award passed by

the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from

Rs.28,95,599/- to Rs. Rs.30,65,599/- with interest at 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are

jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The

compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in

the same proportion in which the original compensation amounts

were directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants are

directed to pay the deficit court fee one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to

costs.

14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 01.11.2022 Yvk

3 2003 ACJ 12 (SC)