Telangana High Court
Jogini Narsaiah, And 3 Others vs Salla Mohan Reddy, And Another on 26 October, 2022
Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3397 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX
Additional District Judge at Kamareddy in M.V.O.P. No.13 of
2015 dated 14.03.2019, the present appeal is filed by the
claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to
as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. According to the petitioners, on 28-09-2014 the deceased
Sayavva along with her husband/petitioner No.1 were going to
their fields at about 10-00 a.m. on foot and when they reached
near MPDO Office, SS Nagar, at the same time one car bearing
No. AP.10.AS.9909 came from Kamareddy side and proceeding
towards Nizamabad in rash and negligent manner at high speed
and dashed Sayavva with its front portion, due to which she fell
down on the road and was ran over by car, as a result, she
sustained fracture to skull, both bones of right leg, right hand
and left hand and 3rd to 6th ribs right side and died on the spot.
Hence the claimants seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
with interest @ 18% per annum.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2
filed counter disputing the manner of accident pleaded by the
claimants and also the age, avocation and income of the
deceased. It is further contended that the claim is exorbitant
and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the
following issues:
1) Whether the accident happened due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the car
bearing No. AP.10.AS.9909?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation, if so, for what amount and
whether in such accident, the deceased died
due to sustaining of injuries?
3) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the issues, PW.1 was examined and got
marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of respondents, no witnesses
were examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked
as Ex.B1.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,16,000/-
towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, along with
proportionate costs and interest @ 7% per annum from the date
of petition till realization.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-
Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has
submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of
P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.9, established the fact that the death of
the deceased-Jogini Sayavva 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 considering the learned 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. However, on considering the evidence of PW-1
coupled with documentary evidence available on record, the
Tribunal has rightly held that the accident took place due to the
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
Then the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to
the quantum of compensation.
12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the
petitioners, the deceased was attending agricultural works and
used to raise and sell vegetables and fruits and was getting
Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing the same to her
family. However, the Tribunal had rightly taken the income of
the deceased at Rs.4,500/- but not considered the future
prospects. Thus, in the light of the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to future
prospects @ 10% of his income, since the deceased was aged
above 50 years. Then it comes to Rs.4,950/-. Since the
deceased left as many as four persons as the dependants, 1/4th
of her income is to be deducted towards her personal and living
2017 ACJ 2700
expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be
Rs.3,713/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 50
years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in the
light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation2 would be "13". Then the loss
of dependency would be Rs.3713/- x 12 x 13 =Rs.5,79,228/-.
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). Thus, in all, the
compensation is awarded as follows:
Sl.No. Description Amount awarded
1. Loss of dependency Rs.5,79,228-00
(Rs.3713/- x 12 x 13
=Rs.5,79,228/-)
2. Conventional heads Rs. 77,000-00
Total: Rs.6,56,228-00
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal
from Rs.4,16,000/- to Rs.6,56,228-00. The enhanced amount
shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of this order till
the date of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
and 2 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, the claimants are entitled to withdraw
the amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J
26.10.2022
pgp
