Maria Francis, Secunderabad Anr vs T Shiva Kumar, Secunderabad Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6181 Tel

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


                      M.A.C.M.A.No.1851 of 2014
JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in

the Award and decree, dated 22.10.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No.

686 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge at Red Hills, Hyderabad

(for short, "the tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the

present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be

referred to as per their array before the tribunal.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 & 163-A of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-

for the death of one Brendan Savio, unmarried son of claimants,

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

vehicle accident that occurred on 06.07.2006. It is stated that on

06.07.2006, while the deceased, along with his friend, was

proceeding on a motorcycle, when the motorcycle reached near

Andhra Bank, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, at about 9:30

p.m., the crime vehicle i.e., Honda DIO motorcycle bearing No. AP

10AG 0406, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent

MGP, J Macma_1851_2014

No. 2, being ridden by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,

came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle, as a result

of which, the deceased fell down, received multiple injuries and

died on the way to the hospital. According to the claimants, the

deceased was aged about 19 years, unmarried, working as

Customer Service Executive in Maxie IT Services Private Limited,

Ameerpet and earning Rs.9,700/- per month and therefore, they

laid the claim for Rs.13.00 lakhs towards compensation against the

respondents.

4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 filed his counter

denying the manner in which the accident took place. Respondent

No.2 filed its counter denying the manner in which the accident

took place, including the age, avocation and income of the

deceased. It is also stated that the quantum of compensation

claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Considering claim, counters and the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the negligent driving of the rider of the offending

motorcycle and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.7,37,000/-

with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly

MGP, J Macma_1851_2014

and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by

the claimants seeking enhancement.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants, appellants and

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2, insurance

company. Perused the record.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants is that since the claimants have asserted that the

deceased was drawing salary of Rs.9,700/- per month, by

producing Ex.A.7, salary certificate, the Tribunal ought to have

accepted the avocation of the deceased and the income, but

however, erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at

Rs.6,000/- per month. It is further contended that the claimants,

being parents of the deceased, ought to have been granted 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 others1. Further, as per the

decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the claimants are entitled

to addition of 40% towards future prospects to the established

income of the deceased. That apart, under the conventional heads,

(2018) 18 SCC 130

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_1851_2014

the claimants ought to have been awarded Rs.33,000/- instead of

Rs.17,000/- awarded by the tribunal. It is lastly contended that

the tribunal has erred in taking the age of the mother of the

deceased for the purpose of adopting the multiplier and instead,

following the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation3, the appropriate multiplier is '18'.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent No.2, Insurance company, has contended that relied on

Ex.A.7 only, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased

Rs.6,000/- per month, but however, the learned Standing Counsel

fairly admits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma (supra), the appropriate multiplier is '18'.

9. 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 by either of the respondents.

10. As regards the quantum of compensation, as seen from the

salary certificate of the deceased under Ex.A.7, the deceased was

drawing the monthly salary of Rs.9,700/- per month, but however,

the tribunal, erroneously took the monthly income of the deceased

as Rs.6,000/- only considering the basic and D.A. Even Ex.A.6,

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_1851_2014

appointment letter, issued by the employer reflects that the

deceased was offered the total salary of Rs.9,700/-. In these

circumstances, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly salary of

the deceased at Rs.9,700/-. Further, considering the fact that the

deceased was 19 years old at the time of the accident, the

claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects

to the established income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the future

monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.13,580/- (Rs.9,700/-

+ Rs.3,880/-) and after deducting the professional tax of Rs.200/-,

it comes to Rs.13,380/- per month. From this, as the deceased

was bachelor, 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses of

the deceased following Sarla Verma (supra). After deducting 50%

therefrom towards his personal and living expenses, the net

contribution of the deceased to the family comes be Rs.6,690/- per

month. Since the age of the deceased was 19 years at the time of

the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the guidelines

laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Adopting

multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.6,690/- x

12 x 18 = Rs.14,45,040/-. That apart, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of

the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further, under the head

MGP, J Macma_1851_2014

of filial consortium, the claimants, being parents of the deceased,

are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each, as per the decision of the Apex

Court in Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra). Thus, in all, the

claimants are entitled to Rs.15,58,040/-.

11. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.7,37,000/-

to Rs.15,58,040/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at

7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of order by the Tribunal till the

date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in

the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. The claimants are

directed to pay the deficit court fee since the original claim was

Rs.13.00 lakhs. Time to deposit the entire compensation is two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On

such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their

respective share amounts. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 28.11.2022 Tsr

MGP, J Macma_1851_2014

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.1851 of 2014

DATE: 28-11-2022