Mote Shankaraiah vs Diamand Chicken Products Pvt Ltd
2023 Latest Caselaw 1586 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                      M.A.C.M.A. No.874 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District

Judge, Nalgonda in O.P. No. 570 of 2013, dated 02.06.2016, 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 19-06-2013 the deceased-Linga

Swamy along with Ch.Padma went to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally,

on the motorcycle bearing No. AP.24.AJ.8598 to console the relative of

Padma, and thereafter they were returning home on the same motorcycle

and when they were crossing the road at Y junction at Kamineni

Hospital, Narketpally, meanwhile, one car bearing No. AP.09.CM.0777

being driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner at high

speed, towards Vijayawada side and dashed the motorcycle of the

deceased. As a result of which, the deceased Linga Swamy sustained

grievous injuries and died on the spot, while the pillion rider Padma

sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Kamineni Hospital,

Narketpally. The matter was reported to the Police. According to the

petitioners, the deceased was quite hale and healthy, and was aged about

25 years and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month as an employee in Jadala

Ramalingeswara Temple, Chervugattu, Nalgonda District. On account

of the death of the deceased, petitioners became destitute and they are

facing lot of difficulties in maintaining them. Thus, they are claiming

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads against the

respondents No.1 and 2, owner and insurer of the car bearing No.

AP.09.CM.0777, jointly and severally.

4. Respondent No.1 not filed any counter.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident,

age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that

the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,72,000/- towards compensation

to the appellants-claimants against the respondents herein who are

owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally, along

with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

of petition till the date of realization.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Tata AIG General

Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted

that although the claimants, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and

Exs.A.1 to A.7, established the fact that the death of the deceased-Mote

Linga Swamy was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded

meager amount.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.2 sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending

that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same

needs no interference by this Court.

10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of

accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e., car bearing

No.AP 09 CM 0777. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the

evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence

available on record, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

11. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned,

according to the petitioners, the deceased is an employee in Parvathi

Jadala Ramalingeshwara Temple and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month.

To prove the income of the deceased, PW-3 who is the Junior Assistant

in Cheruvugattu Devastanam deposed that the deceased Lingaswamy

worked as Sweeper in the Temple from 1-2-2009 till his death and that

he was paid a consolidated amount of Rs.5,000-00 per month and if the

deceased Mote Linga Swamy was alive, his job would became

permanent and he would get an amount of Rs.15,000-00 as salary, if his

job becomes permanent. However, there is no record to show the

income of the deceased. Moreover, his job is not permanent. Therefore,

considering the evidence of PW-3, the tribunal has rightly taken the

salary of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. But the tribunal did not

consider the future prospects. In light of the principles laid down by the

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others1, the claimants are also entitled to the future prospects and

since the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident, 40%

of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to

Rs.7,000/- (5,000 + 2,000 = 7,000). Since the deceased was a bachelor,

50% of his income is to be deducted towards his personal and living

2017 ACJ 2700

expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.3,500/-

(7,000 - 3,500 = 3,500) per month. Since the deceased was aged about

25 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation2 would be "18". Then the loss of dependency would be

Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 18 =Rs.7,56,000/-. In addition thereto, under the

conventional heads, the claimants are granted Rs.33,000/- as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Further the

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are also entitled to filial consortium at

Rs.40,000/- each as per the Magma General Insurance Company

Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all, the

petitioners are entitled for Rs.8,69,000/-.

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

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

vehicle i.e., car bearing No.AP 09 CM 0777 and it was insured with the

second respondent under Ex.B1 covering the date of accident.

Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are

jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,72,000/- to

Rs.8,69,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the

respondents jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall be

apportioned among the appellants-claimants in the ratio 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

of compensation amount by the respondents, the claimants are at liberty

to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 12.04.2023 pgp