Ghousiya Begum, Nizamabad Dist ... vs Shik Pasha, Nizamabad Dist Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 129 Tel

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.67 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in

the order and decree, dated 20.10.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.150

of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I

Additional 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 Syed Ameer

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

vehicle accident that occurred on 10.08.2013. It is stated that on

the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding on his cycle to

his house, Auto bearing No.AP25W6354, owned by respondent

No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver

MGP, J Macma_67_2017

came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the cycle of the

deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the injuries on the same day at 21.45 hours in

Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. According to claimants, the

deceased was 50 years old and was earning Rs.15,000/- by working

as Carpenter and therefore, they filed the O.P. claiming

compensation of Rs.10.00,000/- against the respondents.

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

parte, respondent No. 2, insurance company, filed counter denying

the manner in which the accident took place, including the age,

avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the

quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and

prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

following issues:

1) Whether on 10.08.2013 at about 21.45 hours at Arsapally X Road, Nizamabad, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of auto No.AP25W6354 by its driver?

MGP, J Macma_67_2017

2) Whether Syed Ameer received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

4) To what relief?

6. 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.

6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,87,000/-

towards compensation to the appellants-claimants along with costs

and interest @ 7.5% per annum against the respondent Nos.1 and 2

jointly and severally, as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-.

7. Heard the learned the counsel for the appellants and the

learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance

Company and perused the material available on record.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants has contended that though

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

MGP, J Macma_67_2017

meager amount without considering the fact that the deceased was

a Carpenter and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. 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.

9. 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

considering the manner of accident and the age, avocation and

income of the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded reasonable

compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.

10. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that after

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

documentary evidence, the Tribunal has categorically observed that

the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the auto. 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 auto.

MGP, J Macma_67_2017

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

the petitioners, the deceased was a Carpenter 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

the age and avocation of the deceased as a Carpenter and the

accident is of the year 2013, 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 @ 25% of his income, since the deceased was

aged 50 years. Then it comes to Rs.5,625/- (4,500 + 1,125 =

5,625/-). From this, 1/3rd 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 two in

number. After deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards his personal

and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_67_2017

would be Rs.3,750/- (5,625 - 1,875 = 3,750/-) per month. Since

the deceased was 50 years by the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the decision reported in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting

multiplier '13', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.3750/- x

12 x 13 = Rs.5,85,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also

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

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

Rs.6,62,000/-.

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

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.4,87,000/- to Rs.6,62,000/-. 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

MGP, J Macma_67_2017

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