Smt.Gopa Ganga Bai And 3 Others vs Devakar Balasaniwar And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 126 Tel

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.10 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in

the order and decree, dated 24.10.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.703

of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the

appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

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

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one Gopa Laxman

(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 10.07.2015. It is stated that on

the fateful day, between 12.30 to 14.45 hours, while the deceased

was proceeding towards his fields situated at Tanoor side on his

motorcycle bearing No.AP01R2111, on the way, one Tata Indigo

MGP, J Macma_10_2019

Car bearing No.MH 34 AM 4173, owned by respondent No.1 and

insured with respondent No.2, driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a

result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous and crush

injuries all over his body and he was shifted to Government

Hospital, Bhainsa in 108 Ambulance and from there, he was shifted

to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad, and from

there while he was being shifted to Hyderabad, the deceased

succumbed to the injuries on the same day at 14.45 hours.

According to claimants, the deceased 60 years old and used to earn

Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agriculture and therefore, they are

claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents 1

and 2 jointly and severally.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter disputing the manner in

which the accident occurred.

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

which the accident occurred and the age, avocation and income of

the deceased. It is further contended that the accident occurred due

MGP, J Macma_10_2019

to the collusion of both the motorcycle and car and further the

compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and

prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. In view of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Indigo car bearing No.MH 34 AM 4173 by its driver causing death of Gopa Laxman?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A6 got marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of

respondents, no witnesses were examined. However, copy of

insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

8. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,86,000/-

towards compensation to the appellants-claimants along with

proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

MGP, J Macma_10_2019

of petition till the date of deposit or realization against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, as against the claim

of Rs.10,00,000/-.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Bharti Axa

General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material

available on record.

10. Learned counsel for the claimant has contended that though

the claim was for Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal has granted a

meagre amount without considering the fact that the claimant used

to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agriculture. In the absence

of any contra evidence adduced by the insurance company, the

Tribunal ought to have awarded the total compensation as claimed

by the claimants.

11. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing

on behalf of second respondent-Insurance Company sought to

sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that

MGP, J Macma_10_2019

considering the manner of accident and the age, avocation and

income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has awarded

reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by

this Court.

12. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that after

considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the

documentary evidence, Ex.A1, F.I.R. and Ex.A2, charge sheet, the

Tribunal has categorically observed that the accident has occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car.

Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the

Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of car.

13. With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to

the petitioners, the deceased was doing agriculture and earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. However, since the petitioners did not

produce any oral or documentary evidence to prove the income of

the deceased, the tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at

Rs.3,000/- per month, which is very less. Therefore, considering

MGP, J Macma_10_2019

the age and avocation of the deceased and the accident occurred in

the year 2015, the income of the deceased can be taken at

Rs.4,500/- per month. Further, in light of the principles laid down

by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to future

prospects @ 10% of his income, since the deceased was aged 60

years. Then it comes to Rs.4,950/- (4,500 + 450 = 4,950/-). From

this, 1/4th of the actual income is to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation2 as the dependants are four in number.

After deducting 1/4th of the amount towards his personal and

living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family

would be Rs.3,713/- (4,950 - 1,237 = 3,713/-) per month. Since

the deceased was 60 years by the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '9' as per the decision reported in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting

multiplier '9', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.3713/- x

12 x 9 = Rs.4,01,004/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_10_2019

entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay

Sethi's (supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to

Rs.4,78,004/-.

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.2,86,000/- to Rs.4,78,004/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and

severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among

the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal.

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

claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 06.01.2023 pgp/pvt