Kukunuru Varalaxmi, Ranga Reddy ... vs P Krishna Veni, Kkd, E.G.Dist And 2 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4611 Tel

                  THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
                                  AND
          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

            M.A.C.M.A.Nos.4209 of 2014 and 930 of 2015

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice G. Sridevi)

      These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.4209 of 2014 filed by the Shriram

General Insurance Company Limited and M.A.C.M.A. No.930 of

2015 filed by the petitioners/claimants seeking enhancement of

the compensation, are directed against the very same judgment

and decree, dated 25.02.2014 passed in O.P.No.1018 of 2011 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short "the

Tribunal").

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 petitioners, who are

the wife, children and parents of one K.Narender Reddy

(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") filed a petition

against     the     respondents     claiming   compensation   of

Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015

motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 28.09.2011 after

completion of office work the deceased was started on his Motor

Cycle bearing No.AP 29 AG 0614 in order to go to his house and

when he reached near Uppal Bus Depot, Peerjadiguda, one Lorry

bearing No.AP 29 U 8122 driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle of

the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down, sustained

injuries and he succumbed to injuries on the same day while

undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital. It is also stated that

prior to his death, the deceased was working as Head Constable

in Security Wing of Railway Protection Force and used to earn

Rs.28,000/- per month. Due to sudden demise of the deceased,

the petitioners lost their source of income. Since the accident

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

the Lorry bearing No.AP 29 U 8122, the petitioners filed the

aforesaid O.P against the respondents. The 1st and 2nd

respondents are the owners, the 3rd respondent is the insurer of

the said Lorry, are jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation.

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st and 2nd respondent remained

ex parte.

5. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments

made in the claim-petition including the manner in which the

accident occurred, age, income and avocation of the deceased.

It is specifically contended that there was no negligence on the

part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the accident

occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased only. It is

also contended that the amount claimed is highly excessive and

prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident

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

the offending vehicle-Lorry and accordingly awarded an amount

of Rs.34,36,260/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the

respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Challenging the same,

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015

the present appeals came to be filed by the 3rd respondent-

Insurance company and the petitioners respectively.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the

petitioners is that as per the principles laid down by the Apex

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and others1, the petitioners are also entitled to the

future prospects and also Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-

insurance company would submit that there is contributory

negligence on the part of the deceased and the Tribunal did not

consider the same. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, it is submitted that the issue with regard to the

future prospects has been considered by the Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others (supra) and as per that judgment, the petitioners are

2017 ACJ 2700

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015

entitled 30% amount towards future prospects. As regards the

conventional heads, it is submitted that the Tribunal has

awarded abnormal amounts of Rs.2,25,000/- and in view of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) it should be

reduced to Rs.77,000/-.

10. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the

Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident took

place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of

the Lorry or whether there was any negligence on the part of

the deceased, to which the Tribunal after considering the

evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A1-F.I.R. and Ex.A2-charge

sheet, has categorically observed that the accident took place

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. No

contra evidence has been adduced by the Insurance Company to

show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the

deceased. Therefore, we 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 Lorry.

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015

11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as

per Ex.A10-Last Pay Certificate, the gross salary of the deceased

was Rs.34,205/-. After deducting all the deductions, the

Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased

at Rs.27,447/- per month. Apart from the same, as the

deceased was working as Head Constable-Government Employee

and aged about 49 years the petitioners are entitled to addition

of 30% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore,

monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 35,681/-

(Rs.27,447/- + Rs.8,234/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are

five in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his

personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased

to the family would be Rs.26,760/- per month. Since the

deceased was aged about 49 years, in view the judgment of the

Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) the suitable multiplier would

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015

be '13'. Applying multiplier '13' the total loss of dependency

would be Rs.26,760/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.41,74,560/-. As regards the

conventional heads is concerned, as per the law laid down by

the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are

entitled to only Rs.77,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of

estate and funeral expenses, therefore, the amount of

Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of

consortium, loss of love and affection to the children and

mother, loss of estate and funeral expenses is hereby reduced

to Rs.77,000/- only. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled to

Rs.42,51,560/-.

12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.4209 of 2014 filed by the

Insurance Company is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.930 of 2015

filed by the petitioners is allowed in part. The amount awarded

by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.34,36,260/- to

Rs.42,51,560/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at

7.5% per annum from the date of judgment passed by the

Tribunal till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall

GSD, J and MGP, J Macma_4209_2014 and 930_2015

be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. The

respondents are directed to deposit the said enhanced

compensation amount within two months from the date of

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

claimants are permitted to withdraw their share amount

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

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

____________ G. SRI DEVI, J

_______________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 14.09.2022 Tsr/gkv