Palle Sandya And 4 Others vs Raj Reddy And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1197 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                      M.A.C.M.A. No. 23 of 2020

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional

District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nirmal in M.V.O.P.

No.105 of 2017, dated 04.10.2019, 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. The facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a petition under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of the deceased-Palle Srinivasa Reddy. On

19.08.2016 at about 7-15 p.m. the deceased was proceeding as a rider on

the motorcycle bearing No. AP.01.AC.5359 from Khanapur to Narsapur

village and when they reached near Sathenapally village, one tractor

bearing No.AP.01.L.5959 driven by the respondent No.1 came in a rash

and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the

deceased from the opposite direction, due to which, the deceased fell

down and received grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately he

was shifted to Government Hospital, Khanapur in 108 Ambulance and

from there he was referred to Sri Krishna Neuro and Multi Specialty

Hospital, Hyderabad and a surgery was performed for removal bone

fragments and evacuation of SDH with contusion on 19.8.2016 and

while undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to the injuries

on 26.8.2016. It is further alleged that the deceased was hale and

healthy and used to work as Sales Executive in Sri Bhadrakali Paints,

Hanamkonda and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to the sudden

demise of the deceased, petitioners suffered mental agony and heavy

loss. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs.30 lakhs against the

respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are driver, owner and insurer of the

offending vehicle jointly and severally.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte; Respondent No.3

filed counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and

income of the deceased. It is further contended that the deceased died

due to his own negligence and there is no involvement of the tractor in

the accident and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Considering the claim petition and the counter filed by the

Insurance Company, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.9,87,200/- towards compensation to the appellants-petitioners against

the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally along with proportionate

costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of deposit or realization, as against the claim of Rs.30 lakhs.

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

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3-The New India

Assurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on record.

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

that although the claimants have proved that the deceased was working

as Sales Executive in Sri Bhadrakali Paints, Hanamkonda and earning

Rs.25,000/- per month by examining PW-3 who is the Proprietor of Sri

Bhadrakali Paints, Hanamkonda and got filed Ex.A4 salary certificate

issued by PW-3, the tribunal has not considered the same and awarded

meager amount by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per

month.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.3-Insurance Company argued that though PW-3 was examined to

prove Ex.A4 salary certificate, but he has not produced any

documentary proof to show that he was the Proprietor of Sri Bhadrakali

Paints, Hanamkonda and furthermore, he has not filed any authenticated

document to show that he is paying Rs.25,000/- per month towards

salary of the deceased and the tribunal has rightly considered the same

and taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month.

Therefore, the same needs no interference by this Court.

9. With regard to the manner of accident, though the learned counsel

for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company contended that the

deceased died due to his own negligence and there is no involvement of

the tractor in the accident, the tribunal after evaluating the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence available on record

rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the tractor bearing No. AP 01 L 5959.

10. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, PW-1

being the wife of the deceased deposed that her husband was aged 30

years and was working as Sales Executive in Sri Bhadrakali Paints,

Hanamkonda and earning Rs.25,000/- per month and got filed Ex.A4

salary certificate and in proof of the same, she got examined PW-3.

However, as rightly argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company, PW-3 has not produced any documentary proof to

show that he is the Proprietor of Sri Bhadrakali Paints, Hanamkonda and

further the salary certificate was not given on letter head of the said firm

and it was typed on a white paper. Further no deductions mentioned in

the salary certificate. However, the deceased is a Post Graduate and

also having original passport under Ex.A5, which shows that the

deceased was educated and has a bright future. Therefore, the income of

the deceased can be taken at Rs.15,000/- per month. In Ex.A2 Inquest

panchanama, the age of the deceased was shown as 33 years. Therefore,

the same can be considered for calculating the loss of dependency. 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 33 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income is

added towards future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.21,000/- (15,000 +

6,000 = 21,000/-). Since the deceased left as many as five persons as

the dependants, 1/4th of his income is to be deducted towards his

personal and living expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased

would be Rs.15,750/- (21,000 - 5,250 = 15,750) per month. Since the

deceased was aged about 33 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 "16". Then the

loss of dependency would be Rs.15,750/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.30,24,000/-. In

addition thereto, under the conventional heads, the claimants are granted

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

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

(supra). Further the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are minor children of the

deceased are also entitled to filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per

the Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram

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

Rs.31,81,000/-.

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

due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 who is driver

of the tractor bearing No. AP 01 L 5959 and the policy was in force as

on the date of accident. Therefore, the tribunal rightly held that all the

respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.9,87,200/- to

Rs.31,81,000/-. 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 to 3 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

2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

order. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee and on such payment

of deficit court fee only, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the

compensation awarded to them without furnishing any security. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 14.03.2023 pgp