Smt Jayanti Datta vs Shaik Mahfuzuddin
2022 Latest Caselaw 6165 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.2975 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

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

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in

M.V.O.P. No.2164 of 2016, dated 18.03.2019, 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 11-06-2016 at about 4-15

p.m. the deceased Ajay Datta being pillion rider went along with

his friend Pintu Kumar Ramani on Activa vehicle bearing No.

AP 09 AR 5285 to Rytu Bazar at Mehdipatnam to purchase

mangoes for his master Dilip Kumar in whose house, the

deceased was working as a cook and after purchasing the

same, both of them were returning home at Banjara Hills and

when they reached near Orange Honda Showroom, Masabtank,

one DCM bearing No. TS 10 UIA 0506 suddenly took the vehicle

to left side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle of

the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down on the road

and came under the rear wheels of the DCM and died on the

spot. The rider of the vehicle also fell down and sustained

injuries and the vehicle was totally damaged. According to the

petitioners, the deceased was aged 32 years, earning

Rs.10,000/- towards salary by working as a Cook under Dilip

Kumar. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of

Rs.17,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are

owner, insurer and driver of the offending vehicle.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of

the petition and further contended that the DCM was insured

with the respondent No.2 as on the date of accident and

therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

5. 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.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the deceased died in the road accident occurred on 11.6.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM bearing No. TS 10 UIA 0506?

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

3. To what relief?

7. 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.

8. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.9,77,200/- towards compensation to the

appellants-claimants against the respondents herein who are

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

severally, along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition till realization, as against

the claim of Rs.17 lakhs.

9. 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.10 and Ex.X1, established the

fact that the death of the deceased-Ajay Datta was caused in a

motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.

10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2 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.

11. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner

of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e.,

DCM bearing No. TS 10 UIA 0506. 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.

12. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was a

Cook by profession and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

However, as there is no income proof, the Tribunal has taken

the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is

very less. Therefore, considering the age and avocation of the

deceased and the year of accident 2016, his income can be

taken at Rs.6,000/- 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 32 years at the time of accident, 40%

of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it comes

to Rs.8,400/- (6,000 + 2,400 = 8,400). 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.6,300/- (8,400 - 2,100 = 6,300) per month. Since the

deceased was aged about 32 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 "16".

Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.6,300/- x 12 x 16

=Rs.12,09,600/-. 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 No.2 who is minor children of the deceased is also

entitled to filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- as per the Magma

General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for

Rs.13,26,600/-.

13. With regard to the liability, though the learned Standing

counsel for the Insurance Company pleaded that there is no

valid driving license to the driver of the offending vehicle, except

examining RW-1 on their behalf, they failed to prove that the

driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving

license at the time of accident. Further the police after

thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of

the offending vehicle under Section 304-A of IPC without adding

Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and the respondents though

filed petition to summon the concerned RTA but could not

adduce any evidence in support of their contention. Thus, the

Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent

Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation

to the petitioners.

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

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.9,77,200/- to Rs.13,26,600/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the

2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

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 of compensation amount by the respondents, 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 25.11.2022 pgp