J Dhana Lakshmi And Another vs K Satyanarayana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 590 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                      M.A.C.M.A. No.30 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.

No.2233 of 2014 dated 27.10.2017, the present appeal is filed by the

claimants.

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants are the mother and sister of one J.Chetan Srinivas

(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). It is the case of the

claimants that on 13.04.2014 at about 12-30 p.m., petitioner No.1 along

with her husband and her son J.Chetan Srinivas was proceeding on

motorcycle bearing No. AP 23 AG 8859 and when they reached near

FRC of Vantimamidi village on Rajiv Rahadari, their motorcycle

touched the divider and her husband and son also fell down on the

other side to the divider, however, they got up and while walking

towards motorcycle to start the same, meantime the driver of one Ritz

car bearing No. AP.15.BL.0089 being driven by its driver came in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed both her husband and son. Due

to the sudden impact, son of petitioner No.1 sustained fatal injuries on

head and all over his body and died on the spot and her husband also

died on the spot. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 9

years and was a student of primary school. The petitioners have

incurred expenditure towards transportation, cremation and obsequies.

Therefore, the claimants filed the aforesaid O.P. claiming

compensation of Rs.5 lakhs under various heads against the respondent

Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the Ritz car respectively.

4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the

accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is

also contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and

negligent driving of husband of petitioner No.1 and he himself dashed

to divider and caused the accident. It is also contended that the

compensation claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the

claim-petition.

6. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- together

with proportionate costs and interest @ 8% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till

payment to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the

claimants.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in view of the

law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions, the claimants

are entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore, prayed

to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

8. Learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company submitted

that after considering all aspects the Tribunal granted adequate

compensation and therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal.

9. With regard to the manner of accident, though it is contended by

the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company that the

accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of husband of

petitioner No.1 and he himself dashed to divider, the tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documentary

evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Further there is no

rebuttal evidence produced by the Insurance Company in support of

their contention. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in this

aspect.

10. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 9 years at the time of

accident. In Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others1 the Apex

Court having considered the grant of compensation in similar

circumstances, has awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of

a 10 year old boy. Recently, in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali and

another v. Shyam Kishore Murmuand another,2 the Apex Court has

awarded an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- by fixing the notional income of

the deceased boy, who was aged about 10 years, at Rs.25,000/- and

multiplied by '15'. Recently, in Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand

Mahto and others3 the Apex Court having considered the grant of

compensation in similar circumstances, has awarded an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of a 12 year old boy.

(2014) 1 SCC 244

Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (SC)

2022 Law Suit (SC) 1218

11. In the instant case, the deceased was 9 years old boy. In view of

the decision of the Apex Court in Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand

Mahto and others (2 supra) and having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to take notional

income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum. Accordingly, when

the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier '15', as per

the decision of Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation4, it comes to Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x Multiplier 15)

towards loss of dependency. The appellants are also entitled to a sum

of Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads. Thus, the appellants are

entitled for Rs.5,00,000/-.

12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from

Rs.3,30,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest

at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2nd

respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount, within

a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as

ordered by the Tribunal. The claimants shall be permitted to withdraw

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There

shall be no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

06.02.2023 pgp