Smt. S Laxmi Shoba, Hyderabad 4 ... vs Mohd. Gouse, R.R.Dist 1 Other
2023 Latest Caselaw 1714 Tel

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

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.534 of 2017
JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

in the order and decree, dated 17.01.2014 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1785 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, 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 under Section 166 of M.V.Act., claiming

compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of one Saggam

Mahender, husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant Nos.

2 to 4, son of claimant No. 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 09.05.2010. According to the claimants, on the

fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding in his Maruti

Van bearing No. AP 13 N 6891, from Ramdevguda to

Lungerhouse and at about 09:30 p.m., one auto bearing No.

MGP, J Macma_534_2017

AP 28 X 9051, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with

respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver, came in rash and

negligent manner with high speed and dashed the car of the

deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous

injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Care Hospital,

Hyderabad, wherein he succumbed to the injuries on

16.05.2010 while undergoing treatment. According to the

claimants, the deceased was aged 42 years and earning

Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by doing business of selling

stainless home needs. The deceased used to contribute his

earnings for the welfare of his family, but due to the sudden

and untimely death of the deceased, the claimants lost their

bread winner, love and affection besides losing future

earnings and dependency on the deceased. Therefore, they

filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 & 2

claiming compensation of Rs.30.00 lakhs towards

compensation under different heads.

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

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

the manner in which the accident took place, including the

age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated

MGP, J Macma_534_2017

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. in part,

awarding a total compensation of Rs.15,85,725/- 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.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the

Tribunal erroneously concluded that the Tribunal erred in not

adding future prospects to the established income of the

deceased and that the amount awarded under the

conventional heads is meagre and needs to be enhanced. It is

lastly contended that since the deceased was 43 years old, the

MGP, J Macma_534_2017

Tribunal should have applied the multiplier '14' instead of

'11'.

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, who is eyewitness to the

accident, coupled with the documentary evidence available on

record i.e., Ex.A.1, First Information Report, held that the

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of auto bearing No. AP 28 X 9051. 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. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

according to the claimants, the deceased was aged 43 years

and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by doing business of

MGP, J Macma_534_2017

selling stainless steel home needs. In support of their claim,

they filed Exs.A.3 & A.4, copies of the income tax returns of

the deceased, which discloses that the deceased was getting

income of Rs.1,81,300/- for the year 2008-09. Considering

the avocation of the deceased and evidence available on

record, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the annual income of

the deceased at Rs.1,81,300/-. However, as rightly pointed

out by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal has

not added future prospects to the established income of the

deceased. Since the deceased was 43 years old at the time of

the death, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others1, 25% towards future prospects can duly be

added to the established income of the deceased. Thus, the

future annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,26,625/-

(Rs.1,81,300/- + Rs.45,325/-). Since the dependents are five

in number, after deducting 1/4th towards personal and living

expenses of the deceased, the net annual contribution to the

family comes to Rs.1,69,969/- and as per the decision of the

Apex Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_534_2017

and another2, the appropriate multiplier is '14' as the

deceased was 43 years old at the time of the accident. Thus,

applying the multiplier '14', the total loss of dependency

comes to Rs.23,79,566/-. In addition to that, the claimants

are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads

(Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Further, the

claimant Nos.2 to 4, being the minor children of the deceased, are

entitled to 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 Ram @ Chuhru

Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.25,76,566/-.

11. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

from Rs.15,85,725/- to Rs.23,76,566/-. 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

respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. 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 major

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130

MGP, J Macma_534_2017

claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share

amounts without furnishing any security. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 21.04.2023 gms/tu

MGP, J Macma_534_2017

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.534 of 2017

DATE: 21.04.2023

gms/tu