Uppari Gopal vs A Venkateshwarlu And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3638 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.277 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri A.Madhava Reddy for the

appellant/claimant and Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for

respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant

dissatisfied with the award passed by the XI Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in

M.V.O.P.No.2356 of 2012, dated 07.08.2014 and thereby seeking

for enhancement of compensation.

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4. On 19.08.2012, while the deceased i.e., Kistamma was

proceeding towards Jammichedu village after attending

agricultural coolie work along with others in an auto bearing

registration No.AP-21-Y-9928 and on the way at about 7.30 p.m.,

when they reached nearby the agricultural lands of one

Jallapuram Srinivasalu, the driver of the tractor bearing

registration NO.AP-22-U-9057 and its trolley bearing no.AP-22-U-

9058, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015

the auto, resulting which, the occupant i.e., deceased received

bleeding injuries to her head, right eye and shoulder and died on

the spot and other passengers received injuries. The Police,

Gadwal Police Station registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2022

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

crime vehicle and filed charge sheet.

5. The claimant, i.e., appellant No.1, who is father of the

deceased, had filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act,

1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-

along with interest.

6. The claimant claimed that the deceased was aged about 35

years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was earning

Rs.6,000/- per month by doing was coolie work and contributing

the same to herself and her old aged father i.e., claimant. Due to

sudden death of deceased, the life of the claimant became

miserable and suffering with mental shock and agony and he lost

her love and affection and financial support of the deceased.

7. The respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the crime vehicle

remained ex parte.

LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015

8. The respondent no.2-insurance company filed counter

denying the allegations i.e., the manner of accident, age, avocation,

earning capacity, negligence of driver of crime vehicle and prayed

for dismissal of the claim petition.

9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the MACT framed the

following issues:

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, from whom ?

ii) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 19.08.2012 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing no.AP-22-U- 9057 and trolley bearing no.AP-22-U-9058 ?

iii) To what relief?

10. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the appellant-

claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were

marked. On behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no

witness was examined, but insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

11. The Tribunal, on due consideration of evidence and material

placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place

due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and awarded

compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The

owner of the crime vehicle and insurance company i.e., respondent

Nos.1 & 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the

said compensation.

12. During the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for

appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered

the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, instead of

Rs.15,000/- per annum. He submitted that the Court below ought

to have awarded compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs as claimed by the

claimant in the claim petition. He submitted that the Tribunal

erred in not adding 50% of the income of the deceased as future

prospects. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on

the decision in the case of Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir Singh and

others 1.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance

company would submit that on due consideration of the evidence

and material placed, the Hon'ble Tribunal had rightly awarded the

compensation. He further contended that Tribunal had rightly

exonerated the insurance company its liability on due

2013 ACJ 1403 LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015

consideration of the evidence and material placed on record and no

ground is made out by the appellant to interfere with the said

finding of the Tribunal and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

Consideration :

14. With regard to the monthly income of the deceased, the

Tribunal had taken the annual income of the deceased as

Rs.15,000/-, which is in dispute in the present appeal.

15. In Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Rayal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court

at paragraphs-13 & 14 observed that,

"13..........appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as coolie and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month at the time of the accident.

......

The appellant was working as a coolie and, therefore, we cannot expect him to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by the claimant, in our view, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal should have accepted the claim of the claimant.

"14..........the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Tribunal need not accept the claim of the claimant in the absence of supporting material. It depends on the facts of each case. In a given case, if the claim made is so exorbitant or if the claim made is contrary to ground realities, the Tribunal may not

(2011) 13 SCC 236 LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015

accept the claim and may proceed to determine the possible income by resorting to some guesswork, which may include the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time."

16. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at

providing relief to the victims or their families, therefore, in view of

the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa (supra),

this Court is of the considered view that monthly earnings of the

deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/-, even in the absence of any

evidence.

17. So far as award of future prospects, in National Insurance

Co.Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court at

paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased was self-employed

or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of established income

should be warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40

years. Since the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident

was 38 years, which is evident from Ex.A4-PME report, an addition

of 40% of the income of the deceased can be added as future

prospects.

18. Since the claimant is only the dependent of the deceased,

one-third of the income towards personal and living expenses to be

(2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015

deducted as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla

Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another 4 at paragraph-30.

19. With regard to the multiplier, as per the decisions of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier is '15' for

the age groups of 36 to 40. In the instant appeal, as the age of the

deceased as on the date of the accident was 38 years, the

appropriate multiplier is '15'.

20. With regard to the award of consortium, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court very recently in the case of Anjali and others vs

Lokendra Rathod and others 5 decided on 06.12.2022, taking into

consideration the decision of the Constitutional Bench in the case

of Sarala Verma (supra), as also in the case of Pranay Sethi

(supra), has awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of

parental consortium. The said enhancement and revision has been

done taking into consideration, raise in the cost of expenses and

cost of living that has arisen during the intervening period from the

date of decisions of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi. Moreover, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in its Constitutional Bench decision

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2023(1) ALD 107(SC) LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015

had said that there shall be 10% hike on the compensation

awarded under general damages every three years.

Conclusion:

21. In view of the above, the compensation amount is

recalculated as under:

Sl.No.    Head                                      Compensation awarded

1         Income                                    Rs.4,500/- per month

2         Future prospects                          Rs.1,800/- (i.e.40% of the income)

3         Deduction     towards        personal     Rs.2,100/-      (i.e.,  one-third     of
          expenses                                  Rs.6,300/-)
4         Total Annual income                       Rs.50,400/-      (i.e., Rs.4,500/-     +
                                                    1,800/- (-) Rs.2,100/-) x 12


6         Loss of dependency                        Rs.7,56,000/- (i.e., Rs.50,400/- x 15)

7         Compensation         for    loss    of    Rs. 44,000/-
          consortium
8         Loss of estate                            Rs. 15,000/-

9         Funeral expenses                          Rs.    15,000/-

          Total compensation to be paid :           Rs.8,30,000/-

22. The Appeal is allowed and the compensation is enhanced

from Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.8,30,000/- with interest at the rate of

7.5.% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization, subject to payment of deficit Court fee on the enhanced

compensation amount. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are directed to

pay the said compensation amount jointly and severally within a LNA,J MACMA No.277 of 2015

period of eight (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

order, duly adjusting the amount if any already paid. On such

deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire

compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

23. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 07 .11.2023 Kkm