Mohd Sirajuddin And Another vs Md Moseen And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 200 Tel

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

                  M.A.C.M.A. No. 76 of 2018

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the

order and decree dated 15.11.2017 made in

M.V.O.P.No.226 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-VII Additional District Judge,

Mahabubnagar (for short "the Tribunal"). By the impugned

order the Tribunal has dismissed the claim-petition filed by

the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

seeking compensation on account of death of Md. Asif, the

deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 24.06.2014.

2. The appellants herein, who are claimants before the

Tribunal, being the parents of the deceased-Md.Asif, filed

the O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of

the deceased in the accident that occurred on 24.06.2014.

According to them, on the fateful day, the deceased left the

house on a motor bike bearing No.AP 22 L 2770 to go to

MGP, J Macma_76_2018

college and at about 16:15 hours, on the way when he

reached near Annapurna Garden Function Hall,

Bhageeratha Colony, Mahabubnagar, lorry bearing No.AP

35 T 2076, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with

respondent No.3, being driven by respondent No.1 in a

rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorbike of the

deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained severe

injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government

Hospital, Mahabubnagar and on the way to the hospital he

succumbed to injuries. According to the claimants, the

deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore,

they laid the claim against the respondents.

3. After considering the claim and counters filed by the

respondents, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim-petition

filed by the claimants holding that the claimants failed to

prove the accident more particularly involvement of crime

vehicle and rash and negligence attributed to the driver of

the crime vehicle and further, the evidence let in by the

claimants and documents exhibited are creating doubt on

MGP, J Macma_76_2018

the genuineness of their claim. Aggrieved by the same, the

claimants filed the present appeal.

4. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants

contended that the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the

claim-petition on the ground that the claimants failed to

prove the accident more particularly involvement of crime

vehicle, rash and negligence attributed to driver of crime

vehicle and also the documents produced by the claimants.

It is contended that initially a crime was registered against

the unknown vehicle but after completing investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed charge sheet, Ex.A7, stating that

the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, Lorry bearing

No.AP 35 T 2076. As the driver of the crime vehicle has

admitted in his cross-examination that the accident taken

place on 24.06.2014, the Tribunal erroneously dismissed

the claim-petition stating that the claimants failed to prove

MGP, J Macma_76_2018

the involvement of the crime vehicle. Insofar as the

quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended

that though the claimants claimed that the deceased was

working as part time cell phone mechanic and earning

Rs.6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has erroneously

taken the notional income at Rs.25,000/- per annum. It is

further submitted that as per the decision of the Apex

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to

addition of 40% towards future prospects to the

established income of the deceased and Rs.33,000/- under

conventional heads. Therefore, the learned counsel

sought to set aside the findings of the Tribunal and allow

the appeal by awarding just and reasonable compensation.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has rightly

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_76_2018

dismissed the claim-petition as the crime vehicle was

implicated in order to claim compensation.

7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal

is whether the claimants have proved the involvement of

the Lorry bearing No.AP 35 T 2076 in the accident and, if

so, what is the just and reasonable compensation to which

the claimants are entitled to?

8. It is the case of the claimants that 24.06.2014 while

the deceased was proceeding on his motor bike bearing

No.AP 22L 2770 and when he reached near Annapurna

Garden Function Hall, Bhageeratha Colony,

Mahabubnagar, lorry bearing No.AP 35 T 2076 being

driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner

at high speed, dashed against the motorbike of the

deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous

injuries. Immediately after the accident, while shifting the

deceased to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar, he

succumbed to injuries. Admittedly, basing on the

complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, a case in

MGP, J Macma_76_2018

Crime No.207 of 2014 was registered against an un-known

vehicle. After examining the injured and eye witnesses and

on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid

the charge sheet against respondent No.1 stating that he is

responsible for causing the accident.

9. It is also to be noted that in a claim for compensation

under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the

claimant has to prove the incident only on preponderance

of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond

reasonable doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Bimla Devi Vs.

Himachal Road Transport Corporation2. After the

investigation, the investigating officer has filed charge

sheet against respondent No.1 concluding that the accident

occurred only due to his negligence, as he drove the

offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Further,

during the course of cross-examination, respondent No.1,

driver of the crime vehicle, has admitted the accident. He

AIR 2009 SC 2819

MGP, J Macma_76_2018

also admitted that immediately after the accident he has

absconded due to fear. Further, in C.C.No.213 of 2015,

respondent No.1 was tried before the Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise,

Mahabubnagar, for the offences punishable under sections

304-A and 337 of I.P.C. Before the Magistrate Court, the

Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation, was

examined as P.W.13 and in his evidence he deposed that

on 08.08.2014 the accused, respondent No.1, driver of the

crime vehicle, came to him and voluntarily surrendered

before him confessing the guilt. He further deposed that

after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet

against respondent No.1. In view of above reasons, this

Court is of the opinion that the tribunal has erroneously

dismissed the O.P. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is

inclined to set aside the findings of the Tribunal holding

that the accident occurred only due to the rash and

negligent driving of respondent No.1.

MGP, J Macma_76_2018

10. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was

earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as cell phone

mechanic at Zameer Mobile Care, Mahabubnagar, the

Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.25,000/- per

annum. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar3, the Apex

Court held that even there is no proof of income and

earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated but in

the instant case the claimants have examined the employer

of the deceased as P.W.3. Therefore, considering the age of

the deceased and the prevailing minimum wages at the

relevant point of time, this Court is inclined to fix the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month.

Considering the fact that the age of the deceased at the

time of accident was aged about 18 years, the claimants

are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects to

the established income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the

(2001) 8 SCC 197

MGP, J Macma_76_2018

future monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2000/-). From this, 50% is to

be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as

the deceased was unmarried at the time of the accident.

After deducting 50% therefrom towards his personal and

living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the

family comes to Rs.3,500/- per month. Since the age of

the deceased was 18 years as held by the Tribunal, the

appropriate multiplier is '18'. Adopting multiplier '18', the

total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 18 =

Rs.7,56,000/-. That apart, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).

Furthermore, they are granted Rs.40,000/- each towards

filial consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in

Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others4. Thus, in all, the

claimants are entitled to Rs.8,69,000/-.

(2018) 18 SCC 130

MGP, J Macma_76_2018

11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The

claimants are entitled to Rs.8,69,000/- towards

compensation together with interest at 6% per annum from

the date of filing of the O.P. before the tribunal till the date

of realization. Out of the said compensation, both the

claimants are entitled to equal share. Respondent Nos.2

and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid

compensation. Time for depositing the amount is two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

On such deposit, both the claimants are permitted to

withdraw their share amount without furnishing any

security. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 11.01.2023 Tsr

MGP, J Macma_76_2018

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

M.A.C.M.A. No. 76 of 2018

DATE: 11-01-2023