Smt.P.Laxmamma And Another vs Apsrtc., And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 303 Tel

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

               M.A.C.M.A. No. 2602 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded in the award and decree, dated

24.02.2014 made in M.V.O.P.No.893 of 2012 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City

Civil Courts, Hyderabad (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

are referred to as per their array before the tribunal.

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

petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act

claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of

one P.Sheshulu (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased")

in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.12.2011.

According to the claimants on the fateful day the deceased

was crossing the road at Uppal Nalla Cheruvukatta duly

MGP, J Macma_2602_2014

observing the traffic, at that time one R.T.C. bus bearing

No.AP 11 Z 7109, owned by the respondents, being driven

by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained grievous

injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident,

the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad and he succumbed to injuries on

11.12.2011 while undergoing treatment. It is stated that

prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy

and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by working in M/s.

P.V.Electro Planting Works, Fatenagar. Due to sudden

demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their source of

income, love and affection and therefore, they filed the

claim-petition seeking compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs

towards compensation under various heads.

4. Before the Tribunal, the respondents contested the

claim denying the averments of the claim petition,

including the age, avocation and income of the deceased

MGP, J Macma_2602_2014

and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and

prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. After considering the claim, counter filed by the

respondents and the evidence, both oral and documentary

brought on record, the tribunal has allowed the O.P. in

part awarding a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- towards

compensation with interest at 7.5% thereon to be paid by

the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the

present appeal is filed by the claimants.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the

claimants that as per the principles laid down by the Apex

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are also entitled

to the future prospects and also Rs.33,000/- under

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_2602_2014

conventional heads. It is further contended that as per

the law laid down by the Apex Court the claimant No.1,

being the mother of the deceased is also entitled to

Rs.50,000/- towards filial consortium.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has

submitted that the issue with regard to the future

prospects has been considered by the Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others (supra) and as per that judgment, the

claimants are entitled 40% amount towards future

prospects. It is further submitted that the compensation

towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly granted

by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced.

9. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the

accident and the rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver in causing the accident that

resulted in the death of the deceased. It is to be noted that

although the O.P. was filed under Section 163-A of the

MGP, J Macma_2602_2014

M.V. Act, in view of its findings arrived on issue No. 1 to

the effect that the accident had occurred on account of

rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by its driver,

the Tribunal proceeded with the O.P. as has been filed

under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

10. As regards the quantum of compensation, though the

claimants have claimed that the deceased was a worker in

sales representative and was earning Rs.9,000/- per M/s.

P.V.Electro Painting Works, Fatenagar, the Tribunal has

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

However, considering the prevailing rate of minimum wages

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

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

from the same, the claimants are entitled to addition of

40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).

Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,000/-). Duly deducting 50%

MGP, J Macma_2602_2014

there from towards personal expenses of the deceased as

he is unmarried, the net monthly contribution of the

deceased to the family comes to Rs.3,500/-. As the age of

the deceased was 47 years at the time of the accident, the

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

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another2. Adopting multiplier '13', his total loss of

earnings would be Rs.3,500/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.5,46,000/-.

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). Further, considering the

fact that the claimant No.1, who is the mother of the

deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of

Rs.50,000/- under the head of filial consortium as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and

(2009) 6 SCC 121

MGP, J Macma_2602_2014

others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to only

Rs.6,29,000/-.

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

company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- 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 more amount than what has been claimed.

Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of

legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a

paramount consideration the Courts should always

(2018) 18 SCC 130

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_2602_2014

endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just

and reasonable extent.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

enhanced from Rs.3,27,000/- to Rs.6,29,000/-. The

enhanced compensation amount will carry interest at 6%

p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The

enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the

claimants in the same proportion in which original

compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal.

Time to deposit the compensation is two months from the

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

deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their

respective share amounts without furnishing any security.

However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court

Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as

to costs.

MGP, J Macma_2602_2014

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 25.01.2023 Tsr