Ch. Swarna Latha And 2 Others vs M. Lallu Patel And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1635 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                      M.A.C.M.A. No.1067 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in

M.V.O.P.No.1783 of 2012 dated 20.11.2017, the claimants have filed

the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners, on 19.05.2012 at about 7-45 a.m.

the deceased Ch.Raja Venkata Gopala Krishna Rao @ Raj Gopal

Krishna was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 28 BG 7882

from Pune towards Shirdi along with his friend Rakesh Singh and when

they reached near Ale village on Pune-Nasik national highway road, at

that time one Eicher medium goods vehicle bearing No. DD 03 G 9236

came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at

high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which he

died on the spot and the pillion rider of the said motorcycle sustained

grievous injuries. After dashing the motorcycle of the deceased, the

said crime vehicle also dashed one lorry bearing No. MH 15 BJ 4290.

According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 24 years, working

as Technical Associate Grade TTGI in Tech Mahindra IT Services and

Telecom Solutions at Pune, Maharashtra and was earning Rs.22,873/-

per month. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of

Rs.40,00,000/- 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 alleging that the accident occurred due to head on collision and

there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is

further contended that the driver of the alleged crime vehicle does not

possess valid driving license as on the date of accident and that the

compensation claimed is excessive.

5. Considering the claim and counter filed by the respondent No.2

and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the

Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part and awarded compensation of

Rs.34,11,667/- with proportionate costs and interest at 8% per annum,

from the date of petition till the date of decree together with future

interest 6% per annum till the payment with a direction to the

respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount and later they can

recover it from respondent No.1 by filing execution.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned

Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Shriram General Insurance

Company Limited and 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-Ch.Raja Venkata Gopala Krishna Rao @ Raj Gopal Krishna

was caused in a motor accident, the Tribunal did not consider the future

prospects and awarded meager amount.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.2-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erroneously

deducted 1/3rd of the earnings of the deceased towards his personal

expenses instead of 50% of his earnings, since he is a bachelor and

awarded higher compensation and therefore, prays to set aside the order

and decree passed by the tribunal.

9. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no dispute.

However, after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with

the documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal rightly held

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the Eicher vehicle bearing No. DD 03 G 9236 which resulted

the death of the deceased Ch.Raja Venkata Gopala Krishna Rao @ Raj

Gopal Krishna.

10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to the

petitioners, the deceased was aged 24 years, studied B.Tech

(Electronics and Communication Engineering), working as Technical

Associate Grade TTGI in Tech Mahindra IT Services and Telecom

Solutions at Pune, Maharashtra and was earning Rs.22,873/- per month.

Ex.A13 is the consolidated marks memo of B.Tech., of the deceased

issued by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. PW-3 is the HR

Manager in Tech Mahindra and Exs.A17 to A18 are pay slips for the

months of February 2011, March 2011 and April 2012. Ex.A16

appointment letter shows that the deceased total income was

Rs.2,90,000/-. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-3 coupled

with Ex.A16, the tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased

at Rs.2,90,000/- per annum but did not consider the future prospects.

Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1,

the claimants are entitled to future prospects @ 40% of his income,

since the deceased was aged 24 years. Then it comes to Rs.4,06,000/-

(2,90,000 + 1,16,000 = 4,06,000/-). In the year 2012, there is no

income tax up to Rs.1,80,000/- and 10% is to be deducted towards

income tax if the income exceeds Rs.1,80,000/- up to Rs.5,00,000/-.

Therefore, an amount of Rs.22,600/- is deducted towards income tax.

Then the loss of dependency of the deceased to his family comes to

Rs.3,83,400/-. From this, half of the actual income is to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation2 as the deceased was a bachelor. After

deducting half of the amount towards his personal and living expenses,

the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.1,91,700/-

per annum. Since the deceased was 24 years by the time of the

accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the decision reported

in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting

multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.1,91,700/- x

18 = Rs.34,50,600/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay

Sethi's (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 Ram 3.

Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.35,63,600/-.

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 Eicher vehicle. However, as per the evidence RW-2, Junior

Clerk in RTA, Jalgaon coupled with Ex.B3 driving license extract, the

driver of the offending vehicle is permitted to drive light motor vehicle

of transport, but the vehicle involved in this case is Eicher vehicle,

which is a medium goods vehicle. Thus, it is clearly established that

the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license

as on the date of accident. Therefore, the tribunal rightly directed the

respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount and later they can

recover it from respondent No.1 by filing execution. Therefore, there

are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the tribunal in this

aspect.

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.34,11,667/- to

Rs.35,63,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.2

shall deposit the compensation amount at first and later they can

recover it from the respondent No.1 by filing execution petition. The

amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the 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 respondent

No.2, 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.

_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

13.04.2023 pgp