Bathula Saritha vs Paduri Narasimha Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 1350 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.3303 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional

District Judge, Khammam in M.A.T.O.P. No.572 of 2013 dated

01.05.2014, 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. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 are parents and petitioner No.4 is son of the deceased. On

25-06-2012 at 7-00 hours the deceased Bathula Suresh went to supply

newspapers, then one lorry bearing No. AP 20 Y 8586 being driven by

its driver came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased

and while he was being shifted to the hospital, on the way, he died.

According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as paper boy

and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioners are claiming

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- under various heads against the

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

lorry jointly and severally.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; 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

claim is excessive.

5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PW.1

was examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of

respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, and no document was

marked.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,18,000/- towards

compensation to the appellants-claimants against the respondent Nos.1

and 2 jointly and severally, along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per

annum, as against the claim of Rs.8 lakhs.

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

learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance

Company. Perused the material available on record.

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

that although the claimants established the fact that the death of the

deceased-Bathula Suresh was caused in a motor accident and he was

working as paper boy and earning Rs.9,000/- per month, the Tribunal

has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month and

awarded very meager amount.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.2-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that the Tribunal after considering all aspects has

awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference

by this Court.

10. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no dispute.

However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW.1 coupled

with documentary evidence on record has rightly held that the accident

took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver.

11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the

petitioners, the deceased was working as paper boy and getting

Rs.9,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family.

However, since the petitioners did not produce any oral documentary

evidence to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal had taken

the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month, which is very

meager. Hence, this Court is inclined to take the income of the

deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Further since the deceased was aged

21 years as per the postmortem examination report, the tribunal had

rightly taken the age of the deceased as 21 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 @ 40% of his income, since the deceased

was aged 21 years. Then it comes to Rs.6,300/- (4,500 + 1,800 =

6,300/-). 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 dependents 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.4,725/- per month (6,300 - 1575 = 4,725/-) . Since the deceased

was 21 years by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

'18' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation (supra). Adopting multiplier '18', the total loss of

dependency would be Rs.4,725/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.10,20,600/-. In

addition thereto, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the

conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's (supra). Further the

petitioner No.4 is also entitled to filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- as per

the Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram

Alias Chuhru Ram3. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to

Rs.11,37,600/-.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,18,000/- to

Rs.11,37,600/-. 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 shall be

deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned

among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal.

The claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee. On such payment of

2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

court fee only, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ SMT.M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

21.03.2023 pgp