Smt. Boini Lavanya 2 Others vs Dr. G.Sammi Reddy 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 230 Tel

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

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1063 of 2014
JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

in the judgment and decree, dated 19.01.2010 passed in

M.V.O.P.No. 566 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (for

short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the

present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

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

be referred to as per their array 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

B. Rama Krishna, husband of claimant No. 1 and father of

claimant Nos. 2 & 3 and son of respondent Nos.4 & 5

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

motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.02.2006.

According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the

deceased was returning on his motorcycle to his village from

MGP, J Macma_1063_2014

Hastalpuram Village, Medak District, when he reached near

Ravella Village, Toopran Mandal, the crime vehicle i.e., Car

bearing No. AP 10AJ 6222, owned by respondent No. 1,

insured with respondent Nos. 2 & 3, being driven by its driver

in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle, as a

result of which, the deceased fell down, sustained multiple

injuries and he succumbed to injuries while undergoing

treatment at Gajwel Government Hospital. According to the

claimants, the deceased was aged 28 years, working as a

distributor of Automobile parts with Padmaja Auto Agency at

Ramkoti, Hyderabad and earning Rs.5,000/- per month.

Therefore, they filed the claim petition against the respondent

Nos. 1 to 3 claiming compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards

compensation under different heads.

4. Before the tribunal, while the owner of the vehicle,

respondent No. 1 and the insurance company, respondent

Nos. 2 & 3, filed counters 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

MGP, J Macma_1063_2014

compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to

dismiss the petition.

5. Considering claim, counters and the oral and

documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal held

that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the

Car by its driver and accordingly awarded an amount of

Rs.6,58,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum payable by

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Dissatisfied with

the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed the present

appeal.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants is that the claimants have established that the

deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month out of his

employment with P.W.3 apart from Rs.150/- per day by hiring

his auto to P.W.4, which has been substantiated with the

evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4, but the tribunal has erroneously took

the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. It is

further contended that the claimant Nos.2 and 3, being the

minor children of the deceased, ought to have been granted

MGP, J Macma_1063_2014

parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each, in view of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and

others1. Further, as per the decision of the Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others2, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40%

towards future prospects to the established income of the

deceased considering the age of the deceased as 30 at the

time of the accident. However, the learned counsel has fairly

conceded that as per the decision of the Apex Court reported

in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation3, the

appropriate multiplier, considering the age of the deceased as

30 years, is '17', but not '18', as was applied by the tribunal.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for

the respondent No.2, Insurance company, has contended that

in the absence of producing any documentary evidence to

prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly

assessed the income of the deceased Rs.4,000/- per month

(2018) 18 SCC 130

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_1063_2014

and rightly awarded the just and reasonable compensation

which needs no interference by this Court.

10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place has become final as the same is

not challenged by either of the respondents.

11. As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimants

claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month

out of employment under P.W.3 and also earning Rs.150/-

per day by letting out the auto on hire basis to P.W.4.

However, as rightly observed by the tribunal, except the oral

testimony of P.Ws.3 & 4, no documentary evidence was

produced to establish the income of the deceased. Such being

the case and considering Exs.A.9, A.10 & A.13, this Court is

inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.4,500/-. Considering the fact that the age of the deceased

at the time of accident was below 30 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

MGP, J Macma_1063_2014

future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/-

(Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1800/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased following the

decision in Sarla Verma (supra) since there are five

dependents (claimant Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 4 & 5).

After deducting 1/4th therefrom towards his personal and

living expenses, the contribution of income by the deceased to

the family comes to Rs.4,725/- per month. Since the age of

the deceased was 30 years as held by the Tribunal, the

appropriate multiplier is '17' as per the guidelines laid down

by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Adopting

multiplier '17', the total loss of dependency comes to

Rs.4,725/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.9,63,900/-. That apart, the

claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional

heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi

(supra). Further, since the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are minor

children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a

sum of Rs.40,000/- each to claimant Nos. 2 and 3 under the

head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex

Court in Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (supra). Thus, in all,

the claimants are entitled to Rs.11,20,900/-.

MGP, J Macma_1063_2014

12. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of

compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the

claim made which is impermissible under law.

13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Laxman

@ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental

Insurance Company Limited and another4 and Nagappa

Vs. Gurudayal Singh5 the claimants are entitled to get just

compensation even if it is more than the amount what was

claimed by the claimants.

14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.6,58,000/- to Rs.11,20,900/-. The enhanced amount shall

carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the O.P. till

the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be

apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. Time

to deposit the entire compensation is two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit,

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_1063_2014

the major claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective

share amounts without furnishing any security. However, the

claimants are directed to deposit the deficit court fee on the

enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 18.01.2023 Tsr

MGP, J Macma_1063_2014

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.1063 of 2014

DATE: 18-01-2023