Telangana High Court
Namu Nagaiah And 2 Ors vs V.Bhaskar Rao And Anr on 12 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.926 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree
dated 17.05.2007 in O.P.No.2053 of 2001 passed by the learned I
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad (for short 'The
Tribunal'), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount
of Rs.4,25,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) as
compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.50% per
annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The Tribunal directed respondents to deposit the said amount.
3. The appellants/claimant filed the claim petition before the
Tribunal under Section 166(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w
Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V Rules, 1989 for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) for the death of one Namu Srinivas in a
Motor Vehicle accident.
SKS,J
MACMA.No.926_2008
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the tractor bearing No.AP-25E-
5945 and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company Limited.
5. Heard Sri Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants.
6. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellants
thaton 15.06.2001 the deceased was travelling on the tractor bearing
No.AP-25E-5945 when it reached the limits of Boppapur (V) near Tank
Bund at a distance of 6 km, towards North from P.S. Varni, at about
03:00 P.M., the driver of tractor drove it in a rash and negligent
manner at high speed and lost his control over it, due to which, the
tractor turned turtle, the deceased fell on the ground and the tractor
ran over the deceased, due to which, he received multiple injuries all
over the body and died on the spot.
7. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral
and documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the same vehicle
is insured with respondent No.2, as such, the Tribunal awarded an
amount of Rs.4,25,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Aggrieved by the quantum, the claimants filed the present appeal.
SKS,J
MACMA.No.926_2008
8. There is no dispute with regard to the liability of the Insurance
Company. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is
that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not sufficient. Now the
point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for
enhancement of the claim or not.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
Tribunal without considering the age of the deceased has wrongly
taken the multiplier as 17. The age of the deceased was about 23
years and the income of the deceased was not considered by the
Tribunal as Rs.6,000/- and not awarded the conventional heads.
Therefore, prayed the Court to enhance the compensation.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2-Insurance Company supported the judgment of the trial Court
and submitted that there is no need to enhance the compensation as
the Tribunal awarded sufficient amount.
11. Having regard to the rival submissions and on perusal of the
material available on record, it reveals that there is no dispute with
regard to the liability and negligence, so there is no need to discuss
about the same. According to the appellants deceased used to earn
SKS,J
MACMA.No.926_2008
Rs.12,000/- and Ex.A6 document is filed to prove the same. Therefore,
the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month by the
Tribunal. Further, as per inquest report, the deceased is working as
cleaner of the tractor which was contrary to the averments mentioned
in the Ex.A6. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance 1 , the
income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2 held
that while considering the compensation in cases of death, the future
prospects of the self employed shall also be considered. Having regard
to the age and occupation as self-employed, if 40 percent of the income
is included as future prospects, the monthly income would come to
Rs.6,300/- (4,500 + 1,800). As the dependants are three members,
1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenditure,
as per law laid down in Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 3. Thus, the annual contribution of the deceased to the
claimants would be of Rs.50,400/- (6,300 - 2,100 x 12). As per his age
(2011) 13 SCC 236
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
SKS,J
MACMA.No.926_2008
i.e., 23 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier
would be '18', the total amount comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (50,400 x 18).
12. As there are three claimants, they are entitled to Rs.44,000/-
each towards loss of consortium, which would come to Rs.1,32,000/-
(Rs.44,000 x3). Further the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of estate.
13. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the claimants are
entitled to the following amounts:
Heads Compensation awarded
Loss of dependency Rs.9,07,200/-
Loss of consortium Rs. 1,32,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.10,69,200/-
14. 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
SKS,J
MACMA.No.926_2008
awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible
under law.
15. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another 4 , the Apex
Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 5 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 (2003) 2 SCC 274, 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."
16. 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.
(2011) 10 SCC 756
2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
SKS,J
MACMA.No.926_2008
17. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The compensation
amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from
Rs.4,25,000/- to Rs.10,69,200/-. The enhanced amount will carry
interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal
till the date of realization, payable by respondents jointly and severally
after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one (1)
month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment and
thereafter, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. However,
the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced
amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
DATE: 12.12.2023
SAI
SKS,J
MACMA.No.926_2008
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
Date: 12.12.2023
SAI
