Podium Gopamma vs Sri Venkateswara Constructions
2023 Latest Caselaw 1254 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                      M.A.C.M.A. No. 3443 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge,

Kothagudem in M.A.T.O.P. No. 947 of 2011 dated 09.06.2014, 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 28.05.2011 at about 16-00 hours while the deceased-

Podiyam Rajulu and his relative was proceeding in an auto bearing No.

AP 20 TP 7900 and reached near Burgampahad Village on R & B Road,

at that time, the driver of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 33 C 9788 drove

it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the auto.

As a result of which, the deceased and other inmates of the auto have

received several injuries. The deceased was shifted to Bhadrachalam

Hospital for treatment and he was succumbed with injuries on the even

day. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 43 years at the

time the accident, earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum on his agriculture.

Thus the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under

various heads against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and

insurer of the offending motorcycle 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, PWs.1 and

2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. 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 18.1.2023, the matter is

directed to be listed on 20.1.2023 and that on 20.1.2023 also, respondent

No.2 did not submit his arguments. 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.4,18,800/- 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.

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

although the claimants, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with

Exs.A.1 to A.5, established the fact that the death of the deceased-

Podiyam Rajulu 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., motorcycle

bearing No.AP 33 C 9788. 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 motorcycle.

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

according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged 43 years at the time

the accident. But, no date of birth certificate was filed by the claimants to

prove the age of the deceased. However, as per Ex.A1 First Information

Report, Ex.A3 Inquest report and Ex.A4 Postmortem examination report,

the age of the deceased was 48 years. Therefore, the tribunal rightly

taken the age of the deceased as '48' years. Coming to the income of the

deceased, though the petitioners stated that the deceased was used to earn

Rs.1,00,000/- as an agriculturist, no evidence was produced by the

petitioners to prove the same. Therefore, considering the avocation of the

deceased, the tribunal taken the income of the deceased at Rs.150/- per

day and taken monthly income at Rs.3,600/- per month by excluding six

days, which appears to be very less. Hence, considering the age,

avocation of the deceased and the accident is of the year 2011, this Court

is inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month.

As stated above, the deceased was aged 48 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

48 years. Then it comes to Rs.5,625/- (4,500 + 1,125 = 5,625/-). From

this, 1/4th 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 four in number. After deducting

1/4th of the amount towards his personal and living expenses, the

contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.4,219/- per month

(5,625 - 1,406 = 4,219/-). Since the deceased was aged in between 48

years by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '13' as per

the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

(supra). Adopting multiplier '13', the total loss of dependency would be

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

Rs.4,219 x 12 x 13 = Rs.6,58,164/-. 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.7,35,164/-.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,18,800/- to

Rs.7,35,164/-. 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. The

petitioners shall pay the deficit court fee and on such payment of court fee

amount only, 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