Telangana High Court
Md. Asif Ali Khan vs J.Veera Prasad Another on 4 November, 2022
Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2400 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XVII
Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No.111 of 2009 dated
18-11-2013, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioner, on 16-11-2008 in the mid
night, the deceased-Afsar Jahar Begum and the petitioner
were going on motorcycle and when they reached Mahaboob
Mansion, Malakpet, lorry bearing No. AP.28.X.1654 came in a
rash and negligent manner being driven by its driver and
dashed their motorcycle, as a result, the deceased fell down
and the lorry ran over her and she received grievous injuries.
Immediately she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and
later she died. Thus, the petitioner is claiming compensation
of Rs.6,00,000/- under various heads.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2
filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident
occurred, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is
further contended that the claim is excessive.
5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the
following issues:
1) Whether the accident resulting in death of
Afsar Jahar Begum occurred owing to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of
lorry bearing No. AP.28.X.1654?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation, if so, to what amount and
from whom?
3) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the issues, petitioner was examined as
PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of respondent
No.2, no witnesses were examined, however, copy of insurance
policy marked as Ex.B1.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,17,500/-
towards compensation to the appellant-claimant against the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, along with costs
and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realisation, as against the claim of Rs.6 lakhs.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and
the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-
Insurance Company. Perused the material available on
record.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has
submitted that although the claimant established the fact that
the death of the deceased-Afsar Jahar Begum was caused in a
motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.
10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought to sustain the
impugned award of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal
after considering all aspects has awarded reasonable
compensation and the same needs no interference by this
Court.
11. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no
dispute. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence
of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence on record has
rightly held that the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned
counsel for the appellant had submitted that the claimant has
claimed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs on the ground that the deceased
was a private employee and getting Rs.7,800/- per month and
contributing the same to her family. Though the petitioner
filed Ex.A7 salary certificate issued by Proprietor, Zum Trading
Company, the author of Ex.A7 was not examined to prove the
same. However, the Tribunal had taken the income of the
deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, which appears to be too
less. Hence, this Court is inclined to take the income of the
deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Further, future prospectus
was not considered by the Tribunal. Thus, in light of the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the
claimant is entitled to future prospects @ 40% of her income,
since the deceased was aged 23 years. Then it comes to
Rs.7,000/- (5,000 + 2,000 = 7,000/-). Since the petitioner is
the sole dependant, 50% of her income is to be deducted
2017 ACJ 2700
towards her personal and living expenses. Then the
contribution of the deceased would be Rs.3,500/-. Since the
deceased was aged about 23 years at the time of accident, the
appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex
Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2
would be "18". Then the loss of dependency would be
Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,56,000/-. In addition thereto,
under the conventional heads, the claimant is granted
Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi (supra). Thus, in all, the compensation is enhanced
from Rs.4,17,500/- to Rs.8,33,000/-.
13. With regard to the liability, the tribunal rightly held that
since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was
insured with the respondent No.2-Insurance Company and the
policy was in force as on the date of accident, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation.
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.4,17,500/- to Rs.8,33,000/-. The enhanced amount shall
carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date
of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2
jointly and severally. The amount shall be deposited within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The claimant shall pay deficit Court fee on the
enhanced compensation, since the initial claim was for
Rs.6,00,000/-. On such payment of court fee only, the
claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
SMT.M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J
04.11.2022
pgp
