Gaddam Saritha, And Another vs Sk. Jilani, And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1528 Tel

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                M.A.C.M.A. No.1337 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.86 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

and her husband Gaddam Rajareddy along with their family

members were proceeding in a car bearing No. AP 25 K 1772

driven by her husband from Nizamabad towards Kamareddy

and when they reached the limits of Chandrayanpalli village,

the driver/operator 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 54 years and she was supervising their

agriculture and earning Rs.1.5 lakhs per annum from

agriculture. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation

of Rs.8,00,000/- 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.3,28,000/-

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 Suryakala 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 negligent driving of the car 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,

there are no grounds 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 54 years and she was

supervising their agriculture work and earning Rs.1.5 lakhs

per annum from agriculture. Ex.A12 are certified copies of

pahanies. As the petitioners have not placed any record to

show the income of the deceased, the tribunal has taken the

income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, which

appears to be meager. Hence, this Court is inclined to take

the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. As seen

from the postmortem examination report and inquest report,

the deceased was aged 56 years old. Further the claimants

are entitled to addition of 10% towards future prospects to the

actual income, as per the decision of the Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others1. Therefore, future monthly income of the

deceased comes to Rs.6,600/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.600/- being

10% thereof). From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards

personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v.

2017 ACJ 2700

Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the dependents are two in

number. After deducting 1/3rd amount towards her personal

and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the

family would be Rs.4,400/- per month (6,600 - 2,200 =

4,400/-). Since the deceased was 56 years by the time of the

accident, the appropriate multiplier is '9' as per the decision

reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

(supra). Adopting multiplier '9', the total loss of dependency

would be Rs.4,400/- x 12 x 9 = Rs.4,75,200/-. 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.5,52,200/-.

11. With regard to the liability, the offending vehicle is 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 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

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

the time of accident. Therefore, the tribunal 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.3,28,000/- to Rs.5,52,200/-. 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 during 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