M A Rawoof Another vs Shiva Kumar 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6101 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6101 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 November, 2022

Telangana High Court

M A Rawoof Another vs Shiva Kumar 2 Others on 23 November, 2022

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.2999 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 08.10.2012 made

in M.V.O.P.No.181 of 2011 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar (for short "the

Tribunal), the appellants/claimants preferred the present

appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will

hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who are

the parents of one M.A.Turab 2 ½ years old, (hereinafter

referred to as "the deceased"), filed claim-petition under

Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the

deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

29.01.2011. It is stated that on 29.01.2011 while the

deceased and his mother were waiting by the side of the

MGP, J Macma_2999_2014

road at A.P.H.B. Colony Bus Stop, Jadcherla at about 2:30

p.m., one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 22 W 7545 being

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

the deceased, due to which he died on the spot. On a

complaint, a case in Crime No.33 of 2011 was registered

against the driver of the bus. The deceased is the son of

the claimants and therefore, the claimants filed the

aforesaid O.P. against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are

the owner, insurer and the hirer of the offending vehicle,

bus.

4. The Tribunal, considering the claim and the counters

filed by the insurer and hirer of the offending vehicle, and

on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary,

has partly allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of

Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by

respondent Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed the claim against

respondent No.3-R.T.C. Challenging the same, the present

appeal came to be filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation.

MGP, J Macma_2999_2014

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available

on record.

6. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that

the Tribunal having framed issue No.1 as to whether the

accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the R.T.C. bus by its driver, duly considering the evidence

of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence, has

categorically observed that the accident has occurred due

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C.

bus and has answered the issue in favour of the claimants

and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to

interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver

of the R.T.C. bus.

7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, admittedly, the deceased was aged about two

and half years at the time of accident. In Kishan Gopal

MGP, J Macma_2999_2014

and another v. Lala and others1, the Apex Court having

considered the grant of compensation in similar

circumstances, has awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

for the death of a 10 year old boy. Recently, in Kurvan

Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu2, the

Apex Court has awarded an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- by

fixing the notional income of the deceased boy, who was

aged about 10 years, at Rs.25,000/- and multiplied by '15'.

8. In the instant case, the deceased was two and half

years old boy. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in

Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore

Murmu (supra) and having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, more particularly, considering

the fact that the deceased was 2 ½ years old at the time of

the accident, I deem it just and proper to award a

compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- to the claimants.

9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of

(2014) 1 SCC 244

Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_2999_2014

Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of

compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the

claim made, which is impermissible under law.

10. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional

Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and

another3, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs.

Gurudayal Singh4 held as under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

11. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred

to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount

than what has been claimed. Further the Motor Vehicles

Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest

of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_2999_2014

should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the

claimants to a just and reasonable extent.

12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby