Gaddam Saritha, And Another vs Sk. Jilani, And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1527 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                M.A.C.M.A. No.3221 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy in O.P. No.87 of

2012 dated 27.11.2014, the present appeal is filed by the

claimants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners, on 31.3.2010 the deceased

Gaddam Rajareddy along with his family members were

proceeding in a car bearing No. AP 25 K 1772 from Nizamabad

towards Kamareddy and the deceased was driving the car

slowly and when they reached the limits of Chandrayanpalli

village, the driver of Standard HNC Crane bearing No. AP 28

BG 9552 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed

and lost control over it and dashed their car. As a result, the

deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died

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

aged 60 years and he was a retired Deputy Executive Engineer

and earning Rs.2 lakhs per annum from agriculture and

Rs.21,000/- per month towards pension. Thus, the petitioners

are claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under various

heads against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and

insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2

filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident

occurred, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is

further contended that the crane was 20 yards away from the

car and it was busy in digging earth and removing the stones

for formation of the road and the accident occurred due to the

negligence of the deceased himself and that the claim is

excessive.

5. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,40,000/-

towards compensation to the appellants-claimants along with

proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization and the respondent

No.2 is directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners at

the first instance and then recover the same from the

respondent No.1 by filing an execution petition without filing

any separate suit.

6. 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.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has

submitted that although the claimants established the fact

that the death of the deceased-Gaddam Raja Reddy was

caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager

amount.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the

accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and

that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid

driving license and the Tribunal has erred in fastening the

liability on the Insurance Company and the amount awarded

is exorbitant.

9. With regard to the manner of accident, though the

learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company

contended that as per the scene of offence panchanama, the

crane was at a distance of 20 feet from the road and there was

some distance between car and crane and as such, there is no

damage to the car, the tribunal after evaluating the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2, RW-2 who is Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector

coupled with the documentary evidence available on record,

has rightly held that the probability of change of the position of

the vehicles after the incident cannot be ruled out at any point

of time and from seeing the position of the vehicles, it cannot

be said that there was no negligence on the part of the

driver/operator of the crane and the crane was not involved in

the accident. Further the police after thorough investigation

filed charge sheet against the Crane Operator/driver and there

is no rebuttal evidence placed by the respondent No.2-

Insurance Company to show that there was no negligence on

the part of the Crane Operator/driver. Therefore, the tribunal

rightly held the accident took place due to the rash and

negligent operating of the HNC Crane bearing No. AP 28 BG

9552 by its operator/driver. Hence, I see no reason to

interfere with the finding of the tribunal on this aspect.

10. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to

the petitioners, the deceased was aged 60 years and he was a

retired Deputy Executive Engineer and earning Rs.2 lakhs per

annum from agriculture and Rs.21,000/- per month towards

pension. According to PW-3 Divisional Engineer, Power

Distribution Company Limited, Ex.X1 is pension certificate of

the deceased and the date of birth of the deceased as per office

records is 10.8.1945 and the deceased was 66 years old as on

the date of his death. As per Ex.X1, the total pension of the

deceased is Rs.20,815/- per month. However, considering the

statutory deductions like professional tax and also considering

the status of the petitioners as married daughters, the tribunal

has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per

month, which appears to be very less. Hence, this Court is

inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- per

month. Since the deceased was aged 66 years old, future

prospects cannot be considered. From this, 1/3rd is to be

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 as the

dependents are two in number. After deducting 1/3rd amount

towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of

the deceased to the family would be Rs.13,333/- per month

(20,000 - 6,667 = 13,333/-). Since the deceased was 66 years

by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '5' as

per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '5', the total loss of

dependency would be Rs.13,333/- x 12 x 5 = Rs.7,99,980/-.

In addition thereto, the claimants are also entitled to

Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay

Sethi's (supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to

Rs.8,76,980/-.

11. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent operating of the

offending vehicle i.e., HNC Crane bearing No. AP 28 BG 9552.

Ex.B4 shows that the Operator of the said vehicle was having

Motor Transport License of transport class and also light

motor vehicle of non-transport class and both types of licenses

were valid as on the date of the incident. Since the offending

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

vehicle is HNC Crane, a special category of license is to be

required for it's operating, which was not possessed by its

operator/driver at the time of accident. Therefore, the tribunal

has rightly directed the respondent No.2 to pay the

compensation to the petitioners at the first instance and then

recover the same from the respondent No.1 by filing an

execution petition without filing any separate suit.

12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.6,40,000/- to Rs.8,76,980/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till

the date of realization. The claimants are not entitled for

interest for the delay period. Respondent No.2 shall pay the

compensation to the petitioners at the first instance and then

recover the same from the respondent No.1 by filing an

execution petition without filing any separate suit. The

enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner 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.

____________________________ SMT.M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

06.04.2023 pgp