B Narsimha, Hyderabad 2 Others vs Smt.Anu Kapoor Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5830 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.2102 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in O.P. No.2146 of 2012,

dated 31.10.2014, 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 13.07.2012 at about 5-40

p.m. the deceased Tulasi was proceeding as pillion rider on the

Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. AP.28.AE.7293 being

driven by her husband towards their residence at

Dasireddygudem and when they reached in front of Gowthami

Ladies Hostel on National Highway No.163 of Bhongir Town,

lorry bearing No. HR.55.Q.3276 came from their back side in a

rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed their

motorcycle, due to which Tulasi sustained fatal injuries all over

the body and died on the spot and her husband sustained

severe injuries all over his body. Thus the petitioners are

claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the

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

offending vehicle.

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

filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation

and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the

compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.

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

following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. HR.55.Q.3276 causing death of B.Tulasi?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, for what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-The

United India Insurance Company Limited. Perused the

material available on record.

7. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.6,37,000/- towards compensation to the

appellants-claimants against the respondents herein who are

owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, 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.15

lakhs.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has

submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, and Exs.A.1 to A.8, established the fact that the

death of the deceased-Tulasi was caused in a motor accident,

the Tribunal awarded meager amount.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2 sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that considering the learned Tribunal has

awarded just and reasonable compensation and the same needs

no interference by this Court.

10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner

of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e.,

lorry bearing No. HR.55.Q.3276. However, the Tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the

documentary evidence available on record, rightly held that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle. Now the only dispute is

enhancement of compensation.

11. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was doing

tailoring work and earning Rs.10,000/-. However, as there is

no income proof, the Tribunal has taken the income of the

deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is very less.

However, considering the avocation of the deceased, the income

of the deceased can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month.

Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court

in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others1, the claimants are also entitled to the future

prospects and since the deceased was aged about 30 years at

the time of accident, 40% of the income is added towards future

prospects. Then it comes to Rs.8,400/-. Since the deceased

left as many as three persons as the dependants, 1/3rd of her

income is to be deducted towards her personal and living

expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be

Rs.5,600/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 30

years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the

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

2017 ACJ 2700

Corporation2 would be "17". Then the loss of dependency

would be Rs.5,600/- x 12 x 17 =Rs.11,42,400/-. In addition

thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are

granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in

Pranay Sethi (supra). Further the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who

are minor children of the deceased are entitled for Rs.50,000/-

each as filial consortium as per Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in

all, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.13,19,400/- awarded

by the Tribunal.

12. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No. HR.tt.Q.3276 and it

was insured with the second respondent under Ex.B1 covering

the date of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that

the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to

pay the compensation to the petitioners.

13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

(2018) 18 SCC 130

from Rs.6,37,000/- to Rs.13,19,400/-. 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 respondents jointly and

severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned

among the appellants-claimants 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. On such

deposit of compensation amount by the respondents, the

claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same without

furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 15.11.2022 pgp