Vishwanath Jayasri vs Kogila Mogili
2022 Latest Caselaw 6105 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.710 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII

Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal in

M.V.O.P. No.608 of 2018, dated 28.09.2020, 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 07.02.2018 in the

morning hours Vishwanath Srinivas went to Hanamkonda for

loading bakery items in his trolley auto bearing No.AP 23 X

1519 and after loading, he proceeded to Labour Colony,

Warangal through Flyover bridge and at about 14-00 hours

when he was at Chinthal Flyover bridge, near Telangana

Junction, one lorry bearing No. AP 36 TA 5556 came in a rash

and negligent manner with high speed and hit his auto trolley,

as a result of which Vishwanath Srinivas sustained fatal

injuries and died on the spot. According to the petitioners, the

deceased was auto driver and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per

month. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of

Rs.14,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are

driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte; Respondent

No.3 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 death of V.Srinivas was caused to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP 36 TA 5556 driven by respondent No.1/Kogila Mogili?

2. Whether the respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle?

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

4. To what relief?

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-

Chola MS General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the

material available on record.

7. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.12,45,000/- towards compensation to the

appellants-claimants against the respondents herein who are

driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and

severally, along with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per

annum from the date of filing the claim till the date of

realization, as against the claim of Rs.14 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.6, established the fact that the

death of the deceased-Vishwanath Srinivas was caused in a

motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.3 sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has awarded 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. AP 36 TA 5556. 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 an

auto driver and used to supply bakery items and earning

Rs.25,000/- per month. However, as there is no income proof,

considering the occupation of the deceased as auto driver, the

Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-

per month, which appears to be less to some extent. Therefore,

considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the income

of the deceased can be taken at Rs.9,000/- 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 49 years at

the time of accident, 25% of the income is added towards future

prospects. Then it comes to Rs.11,250/- (9,000 + 2,250 =

2017 ACJ 2700

11,250/-). Since the deceased left as many as four persons as

the dependants, 1/4th of his income is to be deducted towards

his personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the

deceased would be Rs.8,438/- (11,250 - 2,812 = 8,438) per

month. Since the deceased was aged about 49 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 "13". Then the loss of dependency would be

Rs.8,438/- x 12 x 13 =Rs.13,16,328/-. 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). Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for

Rs.13,93,328/-.

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. AP 36 TA 5556 and

it was insured with the respondent No.3 under Ex.B1 covering

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

the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay

the compensation to the petitioners.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

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

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.12,45,000/- to Rs.13,93,328/-. 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, the claimants are

entitled to withdraw the amount without furnishing any

security. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 23.11.2022 pgp