Telangana High Court

U.Anitha 4 Others vs B.Venkateshwar Rao Another on 25 November, 2022

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

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

                  M.A.C.M.A. No. 2991 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

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

Tribunal, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in O.P.No.2264 of 2009,

dated 14.09.2012, the appellants/claimants preferred the

present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming

compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of U.Srinu @

Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in

a road accident that occurred on 02.09.2009. According to the

appellants, while the deceased was proceeding on his

motorcycle from Mulugu towards Masanpally side and when he

reached R & B Bungalow in the village outskirts of Masanpally,

one Auto Trolley bearing No.AP 29 U 8863, owned by

respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being

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

motorcycle of the deceased from opposite direction. As a result,

the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and died on the

spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 26

years, working as driver and earning Rs.6,000/- per month.

Therefore, they laid the claim against the respondents for

Rs.20.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads.

3. Before the tribunal, while the respondent No. 1 remained

ex parte, the respondent No. 2, insurance company, resisted the

claim by filing counter and denying the manner of accident, age,

avocation and income. It is also contended that the

compensation claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss

the claim-petition.

4. After considering the claim, counter, additional counter

and the evidence, both oral and documentary brought on

record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part awarding a

compensation of Rs.6,30,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum

to be paid by both the respondents jointly and severally. Not

satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the

appellants/claimants filed the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2, insurance

company. Perused the material available on record.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants

that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others1, the tribunal ought to have added future prospects at

40% to the established income of the deceased. Therefore, it is

argued that the income of the deceased may be taken into

consideration reasonably for assessing loss of dependency by

adding future prospects and prayed to enhance the

compensation. It is further submitted that the appellants are

also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads. It is

lastly contended that the claimant Nos. 2 & 3 being minor

children and claimant Nos. 4 & 5 being parents of the deceased,

ought to have been granted parental and filial consortium of

Rs.40,000/- each in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in

Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram

@ Chuhru Ram and others2.

7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company submits that the tribunal has rightly

assessed the income of the deceased and has rightly awarded

the compensation which needs no interference by this Court.

2017 ACJ 2700

(2018) 18 SCC 130

8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place has become final as the same is

not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.

9. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

though the appellants claimed that the deceased was a driver

and earning Rs.6,000/- per month the Tribunal has taken the

income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- as the claimants did not

produce any proof to show that the deceased was working as

driver and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. In Latha Wadhwa

vs. State of Bihar3 the Apex Court held that even there is no

proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably

estimated. Since the deceased was aged about 26 years and he

was able bodied person and as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and

2, the deceased was a driver, and the accident occurred in the

year 2009, this Court inclined to take the income of the

deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants

are also entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, to

the established income of the deceased. Therefore, monthly

income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- +

Rs.2000/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards

(2001) 8 SCC 197

personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation4 as the dependents are five in

number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal

and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the

family would be Rs.5,250/- per month. Since the age of the

deceased was 26 years at the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '17' as per the decision reported in

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra).

Adopting multiplier '17', the total loss of dependency would be

Rs.5,250/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.10,71,000/-. The claimants are also

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

Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Apart from that, as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram

(supra), the claimant Nos.2 and 3 being the minor children of

the deceased, are granted parental consortium of Rs.40,000/-

each. Thus, in all, the claimants are granted the compensation

of Rs.12,28,000/-.

10. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of

Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim

made which is impermissible under law.

11. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another5, the

Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh6

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."

12. 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 should always

endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and

reasonable extent.

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.6,30,000/- to Rs.12,28,000/-. The

enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from