Syed Sattar vs Srinivas Murthy
2023 Latest Caselaw 1183 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.3086 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

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

Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court,

Hyderabad in O.P. No.137 of 2014, dated 10.05.2018, 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 29-10-2013 the deceased-

Akhtar Unnisa was returning to Hyderabad after attending her

relative's function at Bidar in DCM van bearing No. AP 12 V

3788 along with other relatives and when they reached

Vattinagulapally at about 4-45 a.m., the DCM driver dashed

another stationed DCM van bearing No. KA 40 7796 which was

parked in the middle of road negligently without taking

necessary precautions and without keeping parking lights etc.

from its back side, as the DCM driver failed to observe the DCM

van due to darkness and the high beam focus lights of the

opposite coming vehicles. Due to which Akhtar Unnisa died on

the spot and others have suffered grievous injuries. According

to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 46 years, tailor by

profession and used to earn Rs.6,500/- per month. Thus the

petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against

the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the

offending DCM van bearing No.KA 40 7796.

4. Respondent remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed

counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and

income of the deceased. It is further contended that the

compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-M/s.

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the

material available on record.

6. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.4,15,600/- towards compensation along with

proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date

of filing of the petition till realization, to the appellants-

claimants against the respondents herein who are owner and

insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally.

7. 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.P.1 to P.5, established the fact that the

death of the deceased- Akhtar Unnisa was caused in a motor

accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.

8. 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.

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

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

DCM van bearing No.KA 40 7796. 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 vehicle.

10. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged

46 years, working as tailor and used to earn Rs.6,500/- per

month. However, as the petitioners have not filed any

documentary evidence to prove the earnings of the deceased as

a tailor, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at

Rs.3,000/- per month, which appears to be very less.

Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the income of the

deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the postmortem

examination report, the age of the deceased was 50 years. 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 50 years at the time of accident,

25% of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it

comes to Rs.6,250/- (5,000 + 1,250 = 6,250). Since the

deceased left as many as eight persons as the dependants,

1/5th of her income is to be deducted towards her personal and

living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would

be Rs.5,000/- (6,250 - 1,250 = 5,000) per month. Since the

deceased was aged about 50 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 "13".

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 13 =

Rs.7,80,000/-. 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). Further the

petitioner No.8 who is minor child of the deceased is also

entitled to parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- as per the

Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram

Alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled for

Rs.8,97,000/-.

11. With regard to the liability, as stated above, the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent parking of the offending

DCM Van and it was insured with the second respondent under

Ex.B1 covering the date of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal

rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and

severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

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

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.4,15,600/- to Rs.8,97,000/-. 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

2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

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