Shankaramma And Another vs Steel Udyog Private Ltd., And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5507 Tel

      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No. 750 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No. 1270 of

2011, dated 18.02.2015, the appellants/claimants preferred the

present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

The appellants filed the O.P. claiming compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of P. Kumar (hereinafter referred to as

"the deceased"), who died in a road accident that occurred on

24.06.20109. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while

the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle as pillion rider, when

the motorcycle reached near Arts College, the crime vehicle i.e.,

DCM Van bearing No. AP 28X 1739, owned by respondent No.1,

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

and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from

behind. As a result, the deceased and the rider fell down from the

motorcycle and the van ran over them and both the deceased and

rider of the motorcycle died on the spot. According to the

claimants, the deceased was 25 years, working as Supervisor at

Ashu Casting Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and was drawing salary of

Rs.5,100/- per month. Therefore, they laid the claim against the

respondents for Rs.6.00 lakhs towards compensation under

different heads.

Before the tribunal, while the respondent No. 1 remained ex

parte, the respondent No. 2, insurance company, resisted the claim

by filing counter and denying the manner of accident, age,

avocation and income. It is also contended that the compensation

claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-

petition.

Considering the claim, counter and the evidence, both oral

and documentary brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the

O.P. awarding a compensation of Rs.6,11,000/- with interest at

7.5% per annum to be paid by both the respondents jointly and

severally. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded, the claimants filed the present appeal.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants is that though the claimants have asserted by

producing Ex.A.7, salary certificate, that the deceased was drawing

a salary of Rs.5,100/- working as Supervisor at Ashu Casting Pvt.

Ltd., Hyderabad, the tribunal has considered the avocation of the

deceased as labourer and fixed the monthly income at Rs.4,500/-

which is meagre and in the absence of any contra evidence

adduced by the insurance company, the tribunal ought to have

taken into consideration Ex.A.7 and ought to have fixed the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,100/-. The other

contention of the learned counsel is that as per the principles laid

down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the tribunal ought to

have added future prospects at 40% to the established income of

the deceased. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the

deceased may be taken into consideration reasonably for assessing

loss of dependency by adding future prospects and prayed to

enhance the compensation.

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance

Company submits that the tribunal has rightly assessed the

income of the deceased and has rightly awarded the compensation

which needs no interference by this Court.

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 either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.

2017 ACJ 2700

The short question that arises for consideration is "whether

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable"?

The Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation.

The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award "just compensation",

irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the

claimants. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, although

the claimants have claimed that the deceased was working as a

Supervisor in a private company and although they have produced

Ex.A.7, salary certificate, to prove that the deceased was drawing

Rs.5,100/- per month as salary, the Tribunal has fixed the

monthly income deceased at Rs.4,500/- on the ground that no

satisfying documentary evidence was placed on record by the

claimants. Of course, the claimants have not examined the author

of Ex.A.7, salary certificate. But the fact remains that the

deceased passed S.S.C., as seen from Ex.A.6 and therefore, basing

on his qualification, the tribunal ought to have accepted the

income of the deceased as reflected in Ex.A.7. Therefore, basing on

Ex.A.7, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the

deceased at Rs.5,100/-.

Coming to the aspect of future prospects, this point has

already been considered by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi

(Supra), and it has been held that the benefit of future prospects

cannot be denied to a self-employed person. The Apex Court has

further held that where the deceased was below the age of 40

years, an addition of 40% of the established income; where the

deceased was between 40 to 50 years, an addition of 25% of the

established income; and where the deceased was between 50 to 60

years, an addition of 10%, should be granted towards future

prospects. According to the appellants, since the age of deceased,

at the time of death, was 25 years, an addition of 40% of the

established income should be granted. Thus, by adding 40% to the

established income of the deceased, the future monthly income

comes to Rs.7,140/- (Rs.5,100/- plus Rs.2,040/- being 40%

thereof). Since the deceased was bachelor, after deducting 50%

therefrom towards his personal expenses, the net monthly

contribution to the family comes to Rs.3,570/-, and the annual

contribution comes to Rs.42,840/-.

After considering the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal has held that the deceased was aged about 25 years at

the time of the accident. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court

in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the suitable

multiplier would be '18'. Applying multiplier '18', the total loss of

dependency would be Rs.7,71,120/- (Rs.42,840/- x 18). However,

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

the conventional heads, as per the decision of the Pranay Sethi

(supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/-but not

Rs.1,25,000/- as was awarded by the tribunal. Apart from that,

as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General

Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and

others3, the claimants, being the parents of the deceased, are

granted filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, in all, the

claimants are granted the compensation of Rs.8,84,120/-.

In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.6,11,000/- to Rs.8,84,120/-. The enhanced

amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from today till the

date of realization. Time to deposit the amount is two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The enhanced amount

shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion

as was ordered by the tribunal. However, the claimants are

directed to pay deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

31.10.2022 tsr

(2018) 18 SCC 130

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 750 of 2019

DATE: 31-10-2022