G Auradha, Hyderabad 4 Others vs G Vinod Kumar, Hyderabad Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1211 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.1064 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

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

Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No.877 of

2013, dated 08.06.2016, the present appeal is filed by the

claimants seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death

of the deceased-G.Raj Kumar who is the husband of petitioner No.1,

father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and son of petitioner Nos.4 and 5. It

is stated by the claimants that on 18.01.2013 while the deceased

along with his driver P.Srinivas were proceeding in a Santro Car

bearing No. AP 09 BM 5721 from Hyderabad towards Yellareddy of

Nizamabad District and when they reached the outskirts of

Nagasanipaly village of Kowdipally Mandal, the driver of the said car

drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, as a result,

the car hit to the culvert and turned turtle, due to which the

deceased sustained grievous head injury and injuries on vital parts

of the body. Immediately he was shifted to Area Government

Hospital, Narsapur and later to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad

where he succumbed to the injuries. According to the petitioners,

the deceased was aged 51 years, working as Jamedhar in

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Government of Andhra

Pradesh at Secretariat of Andhra Pradesh and was drawing

salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the sudden demise of

the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and

suffered mental shock and agony. Thus the petitioners are

claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- against the

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

offending vehicle.

4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2

filed counter denying the averments of the petition and sought

to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is

further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was

not having valid and effective driving license and 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-Tata

AIG General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the

material available on record.

6. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 was examined

herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the

respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined and no

document was marked.

7. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.29,52,000/- towards compensation to the

appellants-petitioners against the respondents herein who are

owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally,

along with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of deposit amount.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has

submitted that though the tribunal has considered the income

of the deceased as Rs.29,087/- per month based on Ex.A6 copy

of pay slip of the deceased for the month of December 2012, the

tribunal did not consider the future prospectus and 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., car

bearing No.AP 09 BM 5721. However, the Tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PW.1 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 car.

11. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged

51 years, working as Jamedhar in Panchayat Raj and Rural

Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh at Secretariat of

Andhra Pradesh and was drawing salary of Rs.30,000/- per

month. According to Ex.A6, the income of the deceased was

Rs.29,087/- per month. Therefore, considering the same, the

tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.28,79,613/- is awarded

towards loss of dependency. However, the tribunal did not

consider the future prospects. 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 51 years at the time of accident, 15% of the income

is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to

Rs.33,450/- (29,087 + 4,363 = 33,450). 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.25,088/-

(33,450 - 8,362 = 25,088/-) per month. According to PW-1, the

deceased was aged 51 years. Since the deceased was aged

about 51 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.25,088/- x 12 x 11 = Rs.33,11,616/-.

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.33,88,616/-.

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

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

from Rs.29,52,000/- to Rs.33,88,616/-. 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 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 14.03.2023 pgp