Smt. Majida Begum vs Mr. Naveen Chand,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5799 Tel

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                M.A.C.M.A. No.3344 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track

Court), Ranga Reddy District at Vikarabad in O.P. No.645 of

2007 dated 12.06.2007, the present appeal is filed by the

claimants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners, on 17.10.2003 when the

deceased Mohd. Ibrahim along with others were proceeding in

a jeep bearing No. AP.12.B.1997 from Tandur towards Indur

village side and when they reached near William School, one

lorry bearing No. AP.13.W.6699 came from opposite direction

being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with

high speed and dashed the jeep, due to which, the deceased

Mohd. Ibrahim died on the spot and other inmates have

received injuries. According to the claimants, the deceased

was aged 26 years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a

jeep Driver. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation

of Rs.5,00,000/- 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 occurred on 17.10.2003 in the night at 01-00 am due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP.13.W.6699?

2) Whether in the said accident the deceased Mohd. Ibrahim was died

3) Whether the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation, if so, at what amount?

4) To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners,

PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5.

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.2,00,000/-

towards compensation to the appellants-claimants 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 deposit, as against the claim of Rs.5 lakhs.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-

Insurance Company. Perused the material available on

record.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has

submitted that although the claimants established the fact

that the death of the deceased-Mohd.Ibrahim 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.2 who is the eye witness-cum-injured in the alleged

accident, 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, according to

the petitioners, the deceased was a Driver and getting

Rs.5,000/- per month and contributing the same to his

family. However, since the petitioners did not produce any

oral or documentary evidence to prove the income of the

deceased, the Tribunal had taken Rs.15,000/- as notional

income of the deceased. However, considering the fact that

the deceased is a driver, this Court is inclined to take the

income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- 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 his income, since the deceased was aged 25 years.

Then it comes to Rs.6,300/- (4,500 + 1800 = 6,300/-). 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 four in number. After

deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living

expenses, the contribution of the deceased to his family would

be Rs.4,725/- per month (6300 - 1575 = 4725/-). Since the

deceased was 25 years by the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the decision reported in

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra).

Adopting multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency would be

Rs.4725/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.10,20,600/-. In addition thereto,

the claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the

conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Thus, in all

the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,97,600/-.

13. With regard to the liability, the tribunal rightly held that

since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

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.

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.10,97,600/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order of the

Tribunal till the date of realization, to be payable by the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Out of the said

compensation, appellant No.4/petitioner No.2 is entitled for

Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining amount shall be

apportioned among the appellant Nos.1 to 3/claimant Nos.1

to 3 in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The amount

shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants shall pay

deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the

initial claim was for Rs.5,00,000/-. On such payment of

court fee only, the claimants are 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

14.11.2022 pgp