Chetan Shah 3 Ors vs Sri P.Ramulu Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1244 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                      M.A.C.M.A. No. 577 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Kamareddy in O.P. No. 2 of 2010 dated 14.11.2011, 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. Appellants are the petitioners in the main petition. According to

the petitioners, on 18-01-2008 at about 9-00 p.m. the members of the

Rotary Club including the deceased Heena Shah and the petitioners

boarded the Bus bearing No. AP 12 V 0851 to go to Bhadrachalam from

Kamareddy and when it reached below the tank bund of Manakondur

Cheruvu of Karimnagar District, the driver of the said bus drove the

vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and went into a ditch

beside the road, lost control over the vehicle and dashed to a road side

tree, due to which, the bus turned turtle and fell on the left side of the

road and the deceased Heena Shah suffered grievous head injury and died

on the spot, while other passengers suffered injuries. According to the

petitioners, the deceased was aged 45 years at the time the accident,

earning Rs.10,000/- per month from saree and cloth business apart from

running beauty parlour. Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation

of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads against the respondent Nos.1 and

2, who are owner and insurer of the Bus respectively.

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

counter disputing the manner in which the accident occurred, age,

avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the

compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and therefore,

prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. In order to prove their case, on behalf of the petitioners, PW.1 was

examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of respondent No.2

no witnesses were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

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

is no representation for the respondent No.2 on 3.1.2023, the matter is

directed to be listed on 9.1.2023 under the caption 'for orders' and that on

9.1.2023 also, there is no representation for the respondent No.2. The

matter pertains to the year 2014. Hence, the matter is reserved for

judgment. Perused the material available on record.

7. Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.2,66,600/- towards compensation to the appellants-claimants against

the respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till realization apart from Rs.20,000/-

towards consortium to the petitioner No.1.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that

although the claimants, by way of evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8,

established the fact that the death of the deceased-Heena Shah was caused

in a motor accident, the Tribunal awarded meager amount.

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

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

No.AP 12 V 0851. 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 Bus.

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

according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 45 years at the time

the accident, earning Rs.10,000/- per month from saree and cloth business

apart from running beauty parlour in the name and style of Monalisa

Beauty Parlour and also she was a sleeping partner in M/s. Shah

Enterprises Wool House, Mumbai and earning Rs.18,000/- per annum

from the firm. However, as the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence

to prove the earnings of the deceased, the tribunal had taken the income

of the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month, which is very less. Hence,

considering the age, avocation of the deceased and the accident is of the

year 2008, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased at

Rs.6,000/- per month. According to the petitioners, the deceased was

aged 45 years. But according to Ex.A3 inquest panchanama and Ex.A4

postmortem examination report, the age of the deceased was 40 years.

However, the tribunal had taken the age of the deceased as 47 years,

which appears to be wrong. Hence, this Court has taken the age of the

deceased in between 40 to 45 years. 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 entitled to future prospects @

25% of his income, since the deceased was aged in between 40 to 45

years. Then it comes to Rs.7,500/- (6,000 + 1500 = 7,500/-). From this,

1/3rd of the actual income is to be deducted towards personal expenses of

the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as

the dependants are three in number. After deducting 1/3rd of the amount

towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased

to the family would be Rs.5,000/- per month (7,500 - 2,500 = 5,000/-).

Since the deceased was aged in between 40 to 45 years by the time of the

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

accident, the appropriate multiplier is '14' as per the decision reported in

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). Adopting

multiplier '14', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.5,000 x 12 x 14

= Rs.8,40,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimants are also entitled to

Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra).

Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,17,000/-.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,86,600/- to

Rs.9,17,000/-. 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 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 of compensation amount by the respondents, 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 15.03.2023.

pgp