Meravath Balu Anr vs Ch.Mallaiah Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6219 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6219 Tel
Judgement Date : 29 November, 2022

Telangana High Court

Meravath Balu Anr vs Ch.Mallaiah Anr on 29 November, 2022

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

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

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.3083 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 24.04.2014 passed

in O.P.No.62 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge,

Miryalaguda (for short "the Tribunal), the appellants/

claimants preferred the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will

hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who are

the parents of one Meravath Suresh 5 years old,

(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), filed claim-

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of

the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

19.10.2008. It is stated that on 19.10.2018, the claimant

No.1 and the deceased were proceeding in Auto bearing

MGP, J Macma_3083_2014

No.AP 24 W 7224 to go to private hospital at Haliya and

when they reached Dayyalagandi at about 12:00 noon, the

driver of the auto bearing No.AP 24 W 7224 drove the same

in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to

which the deceased and one Sakri fallen from the auto on

the road and the deceased sustained injuries and died. On

a complaint, a case in Crime No.79 of 2008 was registered

against the driver of the Auto. The deceased is the son of

the claimants and therefore, the claimants filed the

aforesaid O.P. against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who

are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, Auto.

4. The Tribunal, considering the claim and the counter

filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle, and on

evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, has

partly allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of

Rs.1,23,000/- with interest at 9% per annum payable by

respondent No.2. Challenging the same, the present

appeal came to be filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation.

MGP, J Macma_3083_2014

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available

on record.

6. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that

the Tribunal having framed issue No.1 as to whether the

accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the Auto by its driver, duly considering the evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A1,

F.I.R. and Ex.A6, charge sheet, has categorically observed

that the accident has occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Auto and has

answered the issue in favour of the claimants and against

the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere

with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

Auto.

7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, admittedly, the deceased was aged about five

years at the time of accident. Recently, in Kurvan Ansari

MGP, J Macma_3083_2014

Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu1, the Apex

Court has awarded an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- by fixing

the notional income of the deceased boy, who was aged

about 10 years, at Rs.25,000/- and multiplied by '15'.

8. In the instant case, the deceased was five years old

boy. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kurvan

Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu

(supra) and having regard to the facts and circumstances

of the case, more particularly, considering the fact that the

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

I deem it just and proper to award a compensation of

Rs.4,70,000/- to the claimants.

9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation and the quantum of

compensation which is now awarded goes beyond the claim

made, which is impermissible under law.

Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_3083_2014

10. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional

Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and

another2, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs.

Gurudayal Singh3 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."

11. 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.

12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_3083_2014