Adepu Laxmi vs Singothi Babulu
2023 Latest Caselaw 1684 Tel

      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.15 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the award and decree, dated 08.10.2015

made in M.V.O.P.No.411 of 2012 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Karimnagar (for short "the

Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present

appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Adepu

Sadanandam, who died in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 27.09.2008. According to the claimants, on

the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding in Lorry

bearing No.AP 27 X 6021 along with his goods i.e., cloth

bundles and when the Lorry reached B.T.Road near I.B.

Tandoor, it dashed against a stationed tipper lorry bearing

No.AP 1 W 3957. As a result, the deceased sustained

injuries and he succumbed to injuries while undergoing

treatment in M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. It is stated that

prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy

and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing business

and agriculture. Due to sudden demise of the deceased,

the claimants lost their source of income, love and affection

and therefore, they filed the claim-petition seeking

compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards compensation

under various heads. Respondent No.1 is the driver,

respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the

insurer of the offending Lorry. Respondent No.4 is the

owner and respondent No.5 is the insurer of the Tipper

Lorry, which was negligently parked on the middle of the

road, therefore, all the respondents are jointly and

severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. After considering the claim and the counters filed by

the respondents, and on evaluation of the evidence, both

oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly

allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of

Rs.9,25,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by

respondent Nos.1 and 2 only while dismissing the claim

against respondent Nos.3 to 5. Dissatisfied with the

quantum of compensation and also in exonerating the

Insurance Company from its liability, the claimants filed

the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

claimants that as per 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. As regards the liability, it is

contended that though the deceased was travelling in the

offending Lorry as un-authorised passenger, the insurance

company is still liable to pay the compensation at first

instance and then recover the same from the owner of the

offending vehicle as the policy was in force as on the date

of the accident and therefore, prayed to allow the appeal.

2017 ACJ 2700

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

insurance company i.e., respondent No. 3, has submitted

that the deceased was travelling in the offending Lorry as

gratuitous passenger and therefore, the Tribunal has

rightly exonerated the insurance company from the

liability. It is further submitted that the Tribunal awarded

excess amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium to

claimant No.1 and Rs.25,000/- each to claimant Nos.2 to 6

and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. However, the

claimants are entitled to only a sum of Rs.77,000/- under

the conventional heads as per decision in Pranay Sethi'

(supra) and therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner

in which the accident took place has become final as the

same is not challenged by the respondents.

9. As regards the quantum of compensation,

considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the

Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at

Rs.5,000/- per month. Apart from the same, the claimants

are entitled to addition of 40% 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.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,000/-). 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 six in number. After

deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living

expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family

comes to Rs.5,250/- per month. As the age of the

deceased was 39 years at the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '15'. Adopting multiplier 15, his

total loss of earnings comes to Rs.5,250/- x 12 x 15 =

Rs.9,45,000/-. The claimants are further entitled to

Rs.77,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses,

as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). That apart, considering

the fact that the claimant Nos.3 and 4 are the minor

children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a

sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental

consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in

Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the

claimants are entitled to only Rs.10,62,000/-.

10. Insofar as the liability is concerned, as seen from

Ex.B1, the policy was in force as on the date of the

accident. Even as per the contents of the counter itself,

the deceased was proceeding in the offending lorry as un-

authorised passenger at the time of the accident. In Anu

Bhanvara v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company

Limited4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with

the similar issue, by referring its earlier judgments in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur5 and

Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kumar and

others6 apart from other judgments, invoked the principle

of 'pay and recover', in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case. In view of the above, the

Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation

amount at the first instance and then recover the same

from the owner of the vehicle.

(2018) 18 SCC 130

Laws (SC) 2019 840

2004 ACJ 428

(2017) 4 SCC 796

11. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed

only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and the

quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go

beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.

12. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in

Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another7

and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh8, the claimants are

entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed.

Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of

legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a

paramount consideration the Courts should always

endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just

and reasonable extent.

13. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

enhanced from Rs.9,25,000/- to Rs.10,62,000/-. The

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization. The

enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the

claimants in the same proportion in which original

compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal.

However, following the doctrine 'pay and recover',

respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to pay the

compensation amount to the claimants, at the first

instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of

the offending vehicle i.e., the 2nd respondent without

initiating any separate proceedings. Time for depositing the

amount is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are

permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 19.04.2023 Tsr

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No.15 of 2016

DATE: 19-04-2023