Telangana High Court

B.Gangu , Gungu Bai And Anr vs Mr.Chandra Prakash K. And Anr on 7 November, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                 M.A.C.M.A No.2398 OF 2013
                                &
                  M.A.C.M.A No.38 OF 2014


COMMON JUDGMENT:

     Both these Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeals

are being disposed of by way of this Common Judgment as

both these appeals are directed against the Order and decree

dt.14.06.2013 in M.V.O.P No.1514 of 2011 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII

Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

2.         For   convenience,   the    parties   are   hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3.         M.A.C.M.A No.2398 of 2013 is filed by the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company challenging the legality of the

impugned order, and M.A.C.M.A No.38 of 2014 is filed by the

appellants/petitioners challenging the quantum of the

compensation.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are

parents of their deceased son namely B. Akhil (hereinafter 2 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2398 of 2013 & 38 OF 2014

referred to as "deceased"). They filed a claim petition claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of

their deceased son in a motor vehicle accident that occurred

on 14.04.2011, stating that on that day at about 4.00 a.m.,

while the 1st petitioner, deceased and other family members

and her relatives were returning to their native place in a

Maruthi Omni Van bearing No.AP-25TV-1067 from

Shamshabad Airport and when they reached near Ravi

Horticulture Farm, Kallakal village of Toopran Mandal, at that

time a lorry bearing No.AP-23T-3123 driven by its driver in a

rash and negligent manner, dashed the Maruthi Van. As a

result, S. Ramesh and S. Gangavva died on the spot and the

deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the

accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital,

Gajwel, and while undergoing treatment, he died about 6.30

a.m. on the same day. They further stated that the deceased

was aged 15 years. Based on the complaint, the Police

Toopran registered a case in Crime No.78 of 2011 under

Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the said

Lorry. Hence, the claim petition.

                              3                                          RRN,J
                                                      COMMON JUDGMENT IN
                                           MACMA No.2398 of 2013 & 38 OF 2014

5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the

Tribunal. Respondent No. 2 filed a counter denying the

averments of the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. On behalf of the petitioners, 1st petitioner herself

was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On

behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and got

marked Ex.B1 to B4.

7. On appreciating the material available on record,

the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,75,000/- to the petitioners with

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal

M.A.C.M.A No.38 of 2014 is filed by the appellants/petitioners

for enhancement of compensation.

Respondent No.2 filed M.A.C.M.A No.2398 of 2013

challenging the award passed by the Tribunal.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the Tribunal ought to have considered the earnings of the

deceased at Rs.4,500/- as per the judgment of our Division 4 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2398 of 2013 & 38 OF 2014

Benchin Ramulamma Vs. Venkatesh Bus Union 1 and also

as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the wages of

the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month in the absence of

any proof. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2

vehemently argued that the Tribunal failed to see that the

accident that occurred was of hit and run and the FIR was

registered against the unknown vehicle, but not the insured

vehicle. He further contended that there is violation of

conditions of policy and that there was contributory

negligence. He further contended that the deceased was a

minor and student, and the Tribunal erred in considering the

deceased's income. He further contended that the Tribunal

erred in making the deduction towards personal and living

expenses at 1/3rd instead of 50%. He further contended that

the Tribunal erred in not exonerating the Insurance Company

from the liability. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal

filed by it.






    2009(6) ALD 684 DB

    (2009) 6 SCC 121
                           5                                          RRN,J
                                                   COMMON JUDGMENT IN
                                        MACMA No.2398 of 2013 & 38 OF 2014

11. It is argued by the learned counsel for respondent

No.2 that there was contributory negligence in occurring the

accident. The Tribunal, while discussing the negligence

aspect, observed that the petitioner filed Ex.A1/FIR, which

shows that the direct witness to the accident gave a complaint

to the police alleging that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The petitioner

also got filed Ex.A4/chargesheet, which shows that the

Investigating Officer, who investigated the accident, filed

chargesheet alleging that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-23T-3123.

Contravene the evidence of PW.1, Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 neither the

owner nor the driver of the lorry had not put-forth any

evidence. On considering the evidence of PW.1, Ex.A1 and A4,

the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

lorry bearing No.AP-23T-3123.

12. The Tribunal further observed that respondent

No.2 got examined its Legal Officer as RW.1 and he stated that

the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-23T-3123 did not have a

valid driving license and the M.V. Inspector imposed fine vide

VCR No.0247299/29/4/2011. The respondent No.2 got filed 6 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2398 of 2013 & 38 OF 2014

Ex.B5/VCR issue by RTA, Ranga Reddy which shows that on

29.03.2011, the MVI inspected the vehicle and imposed a

penalty. It is to be noted that the accident occurred on

14.04.2011. Therefore, the VCR issued by the RTA

dt.29.05.2011 for the inspection dt.29.03.2011 is not relevant

to the accident period. Hence, the Tribunal rightly came to

the conclusion that the respondent No.2 failed to prove that by

the time of accident, the vehicle did not have a fitness

certificate. Ex.B1/copy of policy shows that the crime vehicle

was duly insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in

force by the time of the accident. Therefore, respondents are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the

petitioner.

13. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that

in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto 3

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

11. Recently in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & another vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and another (2022) 1 SCC 317, wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6.9.2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs. 25,000/-, applying the multiplier of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs.



    2022 LiveLaw(SC) 841
                            7                                            RRN,J
                                                      COMMON JUDGMENT IN
                                           MACMA No.2398 of 2013 & 38 OF 2014

3,75,000/- and adding Rs. 55,000/- in conventional heads, awarded Rs. 4,70,000/-.

12. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as specified in the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of M.V. Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs. 30,000/- in the case of Kishan Gopal (supra) and Rs. 25,000/- in Kurvan Ansari (supra) in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively.

14. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that as per the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others (2003) 2 SCC 274, it was observed that under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award 'just' compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the Claim Petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.

15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The amount of compensation, as awarded by the High Court is enhanced by Rs. 3,00,000/-, in addition. The total amount of compensation would be Rs. 5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of Claim Petition till realization. The due amount be 8 RRN,J COMMON JUDGMENT IN MACMA No.2398 of 2013 & 38 OF 2014

paid by the respondent No. 4 - United India Insurance Company within a period of four weeks from today.

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also conceded

the ratio laid in the above judgment.

14. Since there is no conflict as regards the ratio laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Devi (Supra),

this Court is inclined to allow the appeal by awarding

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakh only) with interest @ 7% p.a. on

the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realisation.

15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No.38 of 2014 filed by

the appellants/petitioners is allowed. The compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from

Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs only) with