Mohammed Kasim Bee Another vs Ubbena Venkateshwar Rao Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1171 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.293 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III

Additional District Judge, Warangal in M.V.O.P. No.364 of

2014, dated 9.8.2016, the present appeal is filed by the

claimants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioners, on 07.02.2014 at about

23.00 hours the deceased-Mohammed Saidulu was proceeding

on Warangal-Khammam Highway and in the meanwhile, the

driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 2116 being driven by its

driver came from Khammam side to Warangal side in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which,

he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Later he was

shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment and while

undergoing treatment, on 8.2.2014 he succumbed to injuries at

3-30 a.m. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged

56 years, working as a labourer and used to earn Rs.6,000/-

per month. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are

owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter disputing the manner of

accident. It is further contended that the offending lorry was

insured with respondent No.2 as on the date of accident and as

such, respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify and that the

compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is

further contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not

having valid driving license and he was charge sheeted for the

offence under Sections 181 and 184(B) of Motor Vehicles Act

and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is

excessive and as such, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-

National Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material

available on record.

7. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.5,41,000/- towards compensation to the

appellants-petitioners along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of presentation of petition till the date of

realization. However, respondent No.2 is directed to pay the

said awarded compensation to the petitioners in first instance

and recover the same from the respondent No.1.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has

submitted that although the claimants, by way of evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5, established the fact that the

death of the deceased-Mohammed Saidulu was caused in a

motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2 sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable

compensation and the same needs no interference by this

Court.

10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner

of accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle i.e.,

lorry bearing No.AP.12.T.2116. However, the Tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the

documentary evidence available on record, rightly held that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending lorry.

11. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, according to Exs.A2 and A3 i.e., inquest and

postmortem examination report, the deceased was aged 55

years. According to the petitioners, the deceased was a

labourer and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the

tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-

per month, which is very less. Therefore, considering the

avocation of the deceased as a labourer and the accident is of

the year 2014, 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 also

entitled to the future prospects and since the deceased was

aged about 55 years at the time of accident, 10% of the income

is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to

Rs.6,600/- (6,000 + 600 = 6,600). Since the deceased left as

many as two persons as the dependants, 1/3rd of his income is

to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then

2017 ACJ 2700

the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.4,400/- (6,600 -

2,200 = 4,400) per month. As stated above, the deceased was

aged 55 years. Since the deceased was aged about 55 years at

the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation2 would be "11". Then the loss of dependency

would be Rs.4,400/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.5,80,800/-. In addition

thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are

granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in

Pranay Sethi (supra). Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled

for Rs.6,57,800/-.

12. With regard to the liability, it is the contention of the

learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the driver was not

possessing valid driving license and the driver drove it without

possessing the valid driving license. A perusal of the impugned

award shows that R.W.1, employee of the Insurance Company

reiterating the same in his affidavit and further deposed in his cross-

examination that the policy was in force by the time of accident with

badge No.153998. RW-2 Sd.Nadeem Majeed deposed that as per the

driving license extrart, the RTA issued driving license valid from

22.2.2010 to 22.2.2013 and he got renewed and the same is valid

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

from 13.2.2014 to 12.2.2017 and RW-2 further deposed that the

driving skills are same for both transport and non-transport and the

driving license is valid from 22.2.1992 to 12.12.2017.

13. In Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company

Limited and others3, the Apex Court held that "the mere fact that

the driver who possessed a licence to drive the light motor vehicle did

not possess a licence to drive heavy transport vehicle by itself would

not be sufficient to hold that the insurance company would be

absolved of its liability to pay compensation".

14. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the

judgment referred to above, this Court finds that the Tribunal erred

in exonerating the Insurance Company to pay the compensation

amount as awarded by the Tribunal and the Insurance Company is

liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore,

the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to

pay the compensation to the petitioners.

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

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.5,41,000/- to Rs.6,57,800/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the

date of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2

(2016) 4 SCC 298

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 claimants are at liberty to

withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 13.03.2023 pgp