Telangana High Court

Smt. G Mangamma, R.R.Dist And 2 ... vs Phani Venu, Hyd Another on 20 April, 2023

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                        M.A.C.M.A.No.721 of 2017
JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in

the order and decree, dated 05.02.2015 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1144 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District and

Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad (for

short "the Tribunal"),the appellants/claimants preferred the

present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

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

referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition

claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one

G.Ramesh, husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant No. 2,

son of claimant No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"),

who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12.06.2010.

According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased

was proceeding on his bicycle from Rallaguda to Shamshabad, at

about 12:30 p.m., one Tata Mobile bearing No. AP 29 T 7956,

owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2, being

driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed,

came from opposite direction and dashed the bicycle of the

deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

MGP, J Macma_721_2017

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

aged 24 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as mason.

Therefore, they filed the claim petition against the respondent

Nos.1 & 2 claiming compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs towards

compensation under different heads.

4. Before the tribunal, while respondent No. 1 remained ex

parte, the respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the manner in

which the accident took place, including the age, avocation and

income of the deceased. It is also stated that the quantum of

compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss

the petition.

5. Considering the claim of the appellants, counter filed by the

respondent No. 2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary

evidence, the Tribunal allowed the O.P., awarding a total

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with costs and interest @

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of the

realization, to be deposited by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, jointly

and severally. Challenging the same, the claimants have filed this

appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned

Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused the material

available on record.

MGP, J Macma_721_2017

7. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that there is a

chance of increase of monthly earning of the deceased as he used

to earn Rs.10,000/- per month as mason and that the amount

awarded under the conventional heads is meagre and needs to be

enhanced.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 herein has contended that

the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and

the same needs no interference by this Court.

9. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PW.2, eyewitness to the accident,

coupled with the documentary evidence available on record i.e.,

Exs.A.1, FIR and A.2, Charge Sheet, held that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata

Mobile bearing No. AP 29T 7956. Therefore, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which

are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus,

the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the

quantum of compensation.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

according to the claimants, the deceased was aged 24 years and

earning Rs.10,000/- per month as conductor. But no evidence is

MGP, J Macma_721_2017

produced by the claimants in order to prove the income of the

deceased. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar1, the Apex Court

has held that even there is no proof of income and earnings, the

income can be reasonably estimated. Considering the same, the

Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-

per month. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel

for the Insurance Company, the Tribunal has erroneously added

future prospects at 50% without considering the fact that the

employment of the deceased is not permanent in nature. Therefore,

in light of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, 40% is added

towards future prospects, which works out to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500

+ 1,800). After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses as there

are three dependents, the net income of the deceased comes to

Rs.4,200/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased as 24

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

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

Transport Corporation3 is "18". Thus, the future loss of

dependency comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.4,200/- x 12 x 18). As

per Pranay Sethi (Supra), the claimants are entitled to

Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads. Further, the claimant No. 2

being the minor daughter of the deceased, is entitled to

(2001) 8 SCC 197

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_721_2017

Rs.40,000/- under the head of parental consortium as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others4.

Thus, the total amount of compensation works out to

Rs.10,24,200/-.

11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Insurance company

submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as

compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now

awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is impermissible

under law.

12. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another5, the Apex

Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh6 held as

under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above,

the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been

(2018) 18 SCC 130

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_721_2017

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.

14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.8,00,000/-