Dasari Narsamma And 4 Others vs Ponnam Komuraiah And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5514 Tel

         HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No. 336 of 2020

JUDGMENT :

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V

Additional District Judge at Karimnagar vide order dated 08.03.2019

in M.V.O.P. No. 480 of 2013, the present appeal is filed by the

claimants.

2. On 26.05.2013, at about 05:10 hours, while the deceased,

Sammaiah, aged about 48 years, along with his brother, was on

morning walk, when he reached near Sai Garden at the outskirts of

Elkthuthi Village, the offending vehicle i.e., tractor & trailer bearing

Nos. AP 15BL 0131/AP 15BL 0154, owned by respondent No. 2,

insured with respondent No. 3, being driven by its driver, respondent

No. 1, at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the

deceased from his back side and ran over him due to which, the

deceased died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased

was agriculturist, doing cloth business and earning Rs.10,000/- per

month. Therefore, they laid the claim against the respondents

seeking compensation of Rs.16.00 lakhs under different heads.

3. Before the tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed a counter

denying the allegations made in the claim petition, including the

rash and negligence on the part of respondent No. 1. Respondent

No. 3 filed a counter denying all the allegations made the claim

petition and contended that the claim is excessive and exorbitant.

The learned Tribunal, considering the claim of the appellants,

counter filed by the respondents, and on evaluation of oral and

documentary evidence, allowed the O.P. in part, awarding a total

compensation of Rs.6,94,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be

deposited by the respondents jointly and severally within one month

from the date of said order.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 3.

Perused the material available on record.

5. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants-

claimants has argued that though the tribunal has rightly taken the

income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, did not award the

future prospects and considering the age of the deceased as 48

years, as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, at least 25% to

the established income of the deceased ought to have been added

towards future prospects. It is further contended that since the

2017 ACJ 2700

number of dependents are five, the tribunal ought to have deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased at 1/4th but not 1/3rd.

Even the amount granted under conventional heads, by applying

10% addition for the period of three years, the tribunal ought to have

awarded Rs.77,000/-, but not Rs.70,000/-, as per the decision in

Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the learned counsel seeks

enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

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

Insurance Company, respondent No. 3, has contended that the

learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the

same needs no interference by this Court.

7. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident

and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver in causing the accident on 26.05.2013 that resulted in the

death of the deceased. As seen from the record, the claimants-

appellants had claimed that the deceased was agriculturist and

doing cloth business and earning Rs.10,000/-, but in the absence of

any authenticated evidence adduced by them in this regard, the

tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.6,000/-. Since the deceased was 48 years, as per the decision

of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), towards future prospects

at 25% on the actual income of the deceased needs to be added.

Hence, the future income of the deceased would be Rs.7,500/- per

month (Rs.6,000 + 25% thereof). Since the claimant Nos. 2 & 3 are

married daughters, the tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd towards

personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, after deducting 1/3rd

from Rs.7,500/-, the net monthly contribution to the family comes to

Rs.5,000/-. Since the deceased was 48 years at the time of the fatal

accident, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Varma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, the appropriate

multiplier is '13'. Therefore, taking the same into consideration, the

total loss of dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.7,80,000/-

(Rs.5000 x 12 x 13). Thus, under the head of loss of dependency,

the compensation is enhanced to Rs.7,80,000/-, as against

Rs.6,24,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In addition thereto, under

the conventional heads, as against the amount of Rs.70,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are granted Rs.77,000/- as

per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) by giving

10% enhancement for the three years' period. That apart, as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company

Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3, the claimant

Nos. 4 & 5, being the dependent children, are granted Rs.50,000/-

each towards parental consortium. Thus, in all, the claimants are

entitled for the total compensation of Rs.9,57,000/-.

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130

8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.6,94,000/- to Rs.9,57,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of order passed by the

Tribunal till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondents

jointly and severally. Time to deposit the amount is two months from

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

compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants-claimants

in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Date: 31.10.2022 tsr