Kauser Bee Kauser Begum, ... vs P.Naveen Reddy, Medak Dist Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5504 Tel

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


                      M.A.C.M.A.No.1766 of 2015
JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 29.12.2014 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.2282 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (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 be hereinafter

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

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

4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the

death of one Md. Asif (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"),

who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.07.2012.

It is stated that on 31.07.2012 while the deceased, along with his

friend, was proceeding to Hyderabad on a motorcycle, when they

reached the outskirts of Kamkolu village, the crime vehicle i.e., Car

bearing No.AP 23X 2623, owned by respondent No.1 and insured

with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and

MGP, J Macma_1766_2015

negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed the

motorcycle, resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased.

According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 23 years

and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as motorcycle mechanic. As

the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the Car, the claimants filed the claim-petition against the

respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said Car.

5. Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No.1 remained

ex parte, respondent No.2 filed 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.

6. Considering claim, counter and the oral and documentary

evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident

occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Car and

accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- with interest @

6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the

claimants seeking enhancement.

MGP, J Macma_1766_2015

7. Heard and perused the record.

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

appellants is that since the claimants have asserted that the

deceased was motorcycle mechanic and earning Rs.10,000/- per

month, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the avocation of the

deceased and the income, but however, fixed the income of the

deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month treating him as coolie. It is

further contended that the claimant No.1, being the mother of the

deceased, ought to have been granted filial consortium of

Rs.40,000/- 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. It is

lastly contended that the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 6% is

meagre and the same needs to be enhanced to 7.5% per annum.

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

respondent No.2, Insurance company, has contended that in the

absence of producing any evidence, either oral or documentary, to

(2018) 18 SCC 130

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_1766_2015

prove the avocation of the deceased as motorcycle mechanic and

his earnings, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the

deceased Rs.4,500/- per month. It is further contended that since

the deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident, the

Tribunal erroneously deducted 1/3rd instead of 50% towards

personal expenses of the deceased and has also erroneously

awarded an amount of Rs.32,000/- towards consortium.

10. 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.

11. As regards the quantum of compensation, though the

claimants claimed that the deceased was a motorcycle mechanic

and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, since the claimants did not

substantiate the claim that the deceased was working as

motorcycle mechanic by adducing any evidence, the Tribunal has

rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month

considering the avocation of the deceased as coolie, which needs

no interference by this Court. Considering the fact that the

deceased was 23 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

MGP, J Macma_1766_2015

monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- +

Rs.1800/-). From this, 50% is to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation3 since he was a bachelor. After deducting

50% therefrom towards his personal and living expenses, the

contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.3,150/- per

month. Since the age of the deceased was 23 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.3,150/- x

12 x 18 = Rs.6,80,400/-. 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

of filial consortium, the claimant No.1, being mother of the

deceased, is entitled to Rs.40,000/- as per the decision of the Apex

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

claimants are entitled to Rs.7,53,400/-.

12. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned,

as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.

Rajbir Singh and others4, the claimants are entitled to interest @

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP, J Macma_1766_2015

7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

from the date of petition till realization but not 6% as was awarded

by the Tribunal.

13. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.8,54,000/- to Rs.8,69,000/-. 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. Time to

deposit the entire compensation is two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the major

claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amounts

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J .10.2022 Tsr