B Rohnith Raj 2 Others vs Garimala Venkata Satya Bhaskara ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 22 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.3850 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the order and decree passed by the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge,

City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No.1341 of 2011 dated

23.07.2013, the claimants have filed the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners who are children and mother of the

deceased-Bandaru Ravinder, on 25.01.2011 between 4-00 to 5-00 p.m.,

the deceased was crossing the road at National Highway No.9 Petrol

pump to go to Sulabh Complex, near KPHB Police Station, Hyderabad,

at that time one motorcycle bearing No. AP 28 C 6178 being driven by

its rider came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and

dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and received

grievous injuries apart from head injury and immediately he was

shifted to Remedy Hospital and the doctors of the said hospital advised

to shift him to a Corporate hospital and while the attendants were

thinking of shifting to Apollo Hospital after pooling funds, the

deceased succumbed to the injuries on 31.01.2011 while receiving the

follow up treatment at Remedy Hospital. According to the petitioners,

the deceased was aged 40 years and employed in Om Trishul Else Net

Work and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month besides Rs.2,000/-

towards other allowances etc. Thus, the petitioners are claiming

compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- under various heads.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; 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 driver of the offending motorcycle was not having valid driving

license at the time of accident and that the claim is highly excessive.

5. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the following

issues:

1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in the death of the deceased, Bandaru Ravinder due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle (Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 28 C 6178) by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1

to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of

respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.B1 was

marked with consent.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal awarded the total compensation of

Rs.6,95,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum

from the date of the petition till the date of payment or realization

against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

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

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted

that although the claimants established the fact that the death of the

deceased-Bandaru Ravinder was caused in a motor accident, the

Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-

per month and did not consider the future prospects and awarded

meager amount.

10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.2-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence

on record, has awarded adequate compensation and the same needs no

interference by this Court.

11. With regard to the manner of accident, admittedly, there is no

dispute. However, considering the evidence of PW-2 coupled with the

documentary evidence on record, the tribunal rightly held that the

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

the offending motorcycle.

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

petitioners, the deceased was employed in Om Trishul Satellite Net

Work and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month besides Rs.2,000/-

towards other allowances etc. PW-3 who was said to be the Proprietor

of Om Trishul Satellite Cable TV deposed that he was running the

cable TV since 12 years and that the deceased worked under him as a

Technician for four years till his death and he issued Ex.A8 salary

certificate. Though PW-1 has admitted that his father used to work as

Gas Stove Repairer and Ex.A7 house hold card shows that the annual

income of the deceased was Rs.24,000/- on the date of its issuance that

is much prior to the accident. In the absence of any documentary

proof, the tribunal had taken the income of the deceased after

considering the future prospectus at Rs.5,000/-, which is very less.

Therefore, considering the age and avocation of the deceased coupled

with the evidence of PW-3, the income of the deceased can be taken at

Rs.6,000/- 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 44 years. Then it comes to

Rs.7,500/- (6,000+1,500 = 7,500/-). From this, 1/3rd of the income is

to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 since the deceased left

as many as three persons as the dependants. After deducting 1/3rd of

the amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution

of the deceased to the family would be Rs.5,000/- (7,500 - 2,500 =

5,000/- per month. Since the deceased was 44 years by the time of the

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

accident, the appropriate multiplier is '14' as per the decision reported

in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting

multiplier '14', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.5,000/- x 12 x

14 = Rs.8,40,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also entitled

to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's

(supra). Further petitioner No.2 who is minor daughter of the deceased

is entitled for Rs.40,000/- as parental consortium, as per Magma

General Insurance Company Limited v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru

Ram3. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,57,000/-.

13. With regard to the liability, as stated above, since the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the

motorcycle and the policy was in force as on the date of accident.

Therefore, the tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2

who are the owner and insurer of Tata Sumo are jointly and severally

liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

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

compensation amount of Rs.9,57,000/- to the petitioners with costs and

interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization,

(2018) 18 SCC 130

to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The

amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimants shall pay deficit Court

fee on the enhanced compensation, since the initial claim was for

Rs.9,00,000/-. On such payment of court fee only, the claimants are

entitled to withdraw the amount. The amount of compensation shall be

apportioned among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by

the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

03.01.2023 pgp