Merajunnisa Begum vs G. Ram Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 6043 Tel

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

      M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2370 of 2008 and 802 of 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:

      These two appeals are being disposed of by this

common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2370 of 2008 filed

by    the   United    India   Insurance     Company      Limited

challenging     the    quantum      of     compensation     and

M.A.C.M.A.No.802 of 2019 filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation, are directed against the

very same award and decree, dated 19.06.2008 made in

O.P.No.1634 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for

Economic      Offences-cum-VIII     Additional     Metropolitan

Sessions      Judge-cum-XXII      Additional     Chief    Judge,

Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").


2.    For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties

will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.


3.    The facts, in issue, are as under:


      The claimants filed petition under Section 163-A of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos.1

to 6, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death

of one Mohd.Sabir (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"), who died in the accident that occurred on

28.02.2006. According to the claimants, on 28-02-2006 at

about 15-00 hours the deceased was proceeding on his

cycle from Charminar towards Falaknuma and when he

reached Engine bowli road, one APSRTC bus bearing No.

AP 11 V 8861 came from his back side in rash and

negligent manner with high speed and dashed the

deceased from back side. Due to which the deceased fell

down and came under the wheels of the bus and sustained

grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Osmania

General Hospital, where he died. According to the

claimants, the deceased was aged about 35 years and

working as a shoe maker in Regal Foot Wear Manufacturer

at Lad Bazar and drawing salary of Rs.4,500/- per month.

Therefore, they filed the claim petition against the

respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are the owner, insurer and

hirer respectively seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

under different heads.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1,3 and 4

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 very excessive

and therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place on 28-02-

2006 at about 15-00 hours due to rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing No. AP.11.V.8861 by its driver?

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

3. To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 to 3 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the

petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was

examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC

bus bearing No. AP 11 V 8861 and awarded the total

compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to be paid by the

respondent Nos.1 to 4 with proportionate costs and interest

@ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till

realization. Challenging the same, the present Appeals are

filed by the Insurance Company and the claimants

respectively.

8. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the

material available on record.

9. The main contention raised by the learned Standing

Counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company is

that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the

appellant-Insurance Company by passing the award for

Rs.1,75,000/- against both the owners, insurer and

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and

that since the offending vehicle was hired with Andhra

Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, they alone are

liable to pay compensation and therefore, prays to

exonerate them from paying the compensation.

10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the appellants has

submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of

the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum without

considering the fact that the deceased was a shoe maker

and getting salary of Rs.4,500/- per month and not

granted the compensation under the conventional heads.

11. Here it is pertinent to state that originally the claim

petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act

1989. But the tribunal without assigning any reason

rightly framed issue under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act and decided the issue in favour of the petitioners.

However, based on the evidence on record, the Court can

consider Section 166 instead of Section 163-A of Motor

Vehicles Act. In Bhupati Prameela and others vs.

Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram and others1, the

Division Bench of this Court held as under:

"Thus it appears that it is the duty of the Courts to do justice to the parties and while doing justice, if the technicalities come in the way, much importance need not be given to these technicalities because, ultimately, justice has to be done to the parties. Moreover, when sub-section(4) of Section 166 of the Act envisages that the Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under

(2011) 10 SCC 756

sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act as an application for compensation under the Act, there is nothing wrong in treating an application filed under Section 163-A of the Act as an application under Section 166 of the Act. In view of the above and considering the object of the Act, we are of the view that the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act can be treated as an application under Section 166 of the Act."

In view of the above Judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court, the petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor

Vehicles Act can be treated as an application under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the tribunal

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

documentary evidence on record, has rightly held that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the offending vehicle.

12. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the

claimants through the evidence of PW-3 who is none other

than the owner of Regal Footwear Manufacturer

established that the deceased was a shoe maker and

earning Rs.4,500/- per month. However, the Tribunal had

taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per

annum, which is very less. Therefore, considering the age

and avocation of the deceased, this Court is inclined to

take the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. Further the

claimants are entitled to 40% towards future prospects to

the established income, as per the decision of the Apex

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others2. Therefore, future monthly

income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- +

Rs.1,800/- being 40% thereof). From this, 1/5th is to be

deducted towards personal and living expenses of the

deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation3 as the deceased left as many as eight

persons as the dependants. Then the contribution of the

deceased would be Rs.5,040/- (6,300 - 1,260 = 5,040) per

month. Since the deceased was 40 years by the time of

the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '15' as per the

decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '15', the total

loss of dependency would be Rs.5,040/- x 12 x 15 =

Rs.9,07,200/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also

entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as

per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Further the petitioner Nos.2 to

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

6 are also entitled to filial consortium at Rs.50,000/- each

as per the Magma General Insurance Company Limited

vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram4. Thus, in all the

claimants are entitled to Rs.12,34,200/-.

13. 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, which was hired with

respondent Nos.3 and 4-Corporation and insured with the

respondent No.2-Insurance Company and the policy was in

force as on the date of accident, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

14. With regard to the rate of interest, the Tribunal

granted interest @ 6% per annum, which is very less.

Therefore, the rate of interest is enhanced to 7.5% per

annum.

15. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.2370 of 2008 filed by the

Insurance Company is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.802 of

2019 filed by the claimants is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.12,34,200/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization, payable by respondent

Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount

shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the

Tribunal. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee and

on such deposit of court fee only, the claimants are entitled

to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security.

Time to deposit the compensation is one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 22.11.2022 pgp