Telangana High Court

Shirisha Sunita, Medak Dist 2 ... vs Rajesh Ramchandra Asore, Nanded ... on 21 April, 2023

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

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

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.767 of 2017
JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

in the order and decree, dated 11.03.2016 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.119 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Medak, Sangareddy (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.5,00,000/- for the death

of one Komreddy Chenna Reddy, husband of claimant No. 1,

son of claimant Nos. 2 & 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the

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

occurred on 27.12.2013. According to the claimants, on the

fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding on his Bajaj

Discover motor cycle bearing No. AP 23 AF 1654 from Jogipet

MGP, J Macma_767_2017

to Ramsanpally and at about 10:00 p.m., when he reached in

the limits of Annasagar, one lorry bearing No. MH 26 H 7002,

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

being driven by its driver, came from opposite direction in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a

result, the deceased received grievous injuries and died on the

spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 26

years and earning Rs.9,000/- per month as tractor driver.

Therefore, the claimants, being wife and parents of deceased,

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

claiming compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards

compensation under different heads.

4. Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No. 1

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

the petition averments and also denied the age, income,

avocation and manner of the accident. He further contended

the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excess and

exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

MGP, J Macma_767_2017

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

and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the

Tribunal allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of 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 appellants and the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused

the material available on record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that

although the Tribunal came to conclusion that the claimants

are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.6,27,000/-, but

erroneously restricted the compensation amount to

Rs.5,00,000/- only. He further contended that the Tribunal

ought to have noted that there is no restriction in awarding

compensation as just compensation, if in case, the amount

arrived by the Tribunal is exceeding the claimed amount.

MGP, J Macma_767_2017

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 & A.2, Charge sheet, held that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

lorry bearing No. MH 26 H 7002. 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 26 years

and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as a tractor driver.

But no evidence is adduced to prove the income or avocation

MGP, J Macma_767_2017

of the deceased. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has

taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-per month,

which is very less. Hence, considering the avocation of the

deceased, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of

the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. Since, the deceased was aged 26

years, 40% was added towards future prospects as per the

decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, which works out to

Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500 + Rs.1,800). As there are three

dependents, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal

expenses. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses

and living expenses, the net monthly income of the deceased

works out to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.6,300 - Rs.2,100). Since the age

of the deceased was 26 years, as held by the Tribunal, the

appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the guidelines laid down

by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation2. Adopting multiplier '18', the total loss of

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

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_767_2017

That apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under

the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court

in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Thus, in all, the claimants are

entitled to compensation of Rs.9,84,200/-.

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

Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only

a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- 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

another3, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs.

Gurudayal Singh4 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

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_767_2017

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 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.5,00,000/- to Rs.9,84,200/-. 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