Veerla Laxmamma 6 Others vs D Madhava Reddy Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6109 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1769 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional

District Judge, Nalgonda in O.P. No.1043 of 2010, dated

02.07.2012, 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 13-11-2010 the deceased-

Lingaiah along with his workers attending road repairs at

Jangareddygudem of Thipparthy Mandal and at 2-00 p.m. he

was taking rest near Tipper lorry bearing No. AP.24.T.5630 and

at about 2-15 p.m. the driver of Tipper started the vehicle in

rash and negligent manner and ran over the Lingaiah, due to

which Lingaiah received serious injuries and died on the spot.

According to the claimants, the deceased was a Gang Mazdoor

in Roads and Buildings Department and drawing monthly

salary of Rs.16,785/-. Thus the petitioners are claiming

compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- 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 deceased by name Lingaiah died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tipper lorry bearing No. AP.24.T.5630?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount 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

Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material

available on record.

7. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.14,65,000/- 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 @ 6% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization, as against the claim of

Rs.25 lakhs.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has

submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3, and Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Exs.A1 to X3, established

the fact that the death of the deceased-Lingaiah 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 all the aspects, 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.,

Tipper lorry bearing No. AP.24.T.5630. However, the Tribunal

after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 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 a

Gang Mazdoor in Roads and Buildings Department and

drawing monthly salary of Rs.16,785/-. As per the evidence of

PW-3, who is one of the officials of Roads and Buildings

Department, it is clearly established that the gross salary of the

deceased was Rs.16,785/- per month. But the Tribunal had

taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month

which is very less. Thus considering the avocation of the

deceased as a Government employee, his income can be taken

at Rs.16,785/- per month, in which an amount of Rs.100/- is

to be deducted towards professional tax per month. Then it

comes to Rs.16,685/- 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 40 years at the time of accident, 30%

of the income is to be added towards future prospects. Then it

2017 ACJ 2700

comes to Rs.21,690/- (16,685 + 5005 = 21,690/-). Since the

deceased left as many as seven persons as the dependants,

1/5th of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and

living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would

be Rs.17,352/- (21,690 - 4338 = 17,352/-) per month and per

annum it comes to Rs.2,08,224/-. The income Tax exemption

for the year 2011 is Rs.1,60,000/-. So, the taxable income is

Rs.48,224/- (Rs.2,08,224 - 1,60,000/- = 48,224/-). Therefore,

10% of the taxable income is to be deducted towards income

tax, which comes to Rs.4,822/-. Then the annual contribution

of the deceased comes to Rs.2,03,402/- (2,08,224 - 4,822 =

2,03,402/-). Since the deceased was aged about 40 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 "15". Then the loss of dependency

would be Rs.2,03,402/- x 15 =Rs.30,51,030/-. 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.4 and 5 who

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

each as filial consortium as per Magma General Insurance

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

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

all, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.32,28,030/- 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., Tipper lorry bearing No. AP.24.T.5630

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 allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.14,65,000/- to Rs.32,28,030/-. 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. The

claimants shall pay the deficit court fee and on payment of

(2018) 18 SCC 130

deficit court fee only, 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 23.11.2022 pgp