Durki Gangaram And Another vs V. Prabhakar And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3712 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.727 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners

aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02.09.2011 passed in

O.P.No.932 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast

Track Court), Nizamabad, Bodhan (for short "the Tribunal")

seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 16.09.2004 at about 11.30 a.m. one Durki

Gangadhar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was

travelling in the Auto bearing No.AP-25-U-2462 from Vakheel

Faram and proceeding towards Rudrur Village, and when the

said Auto was passing at the distance of 6 k.m. from Vakheel

Faram, the driver of the Auto drove the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner and at high speed and lost control over the

Auto and turned turtle, as a result, the deceased came

underneath the Auto and received multiple fractures. After the

accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital,

Bodhan, where he was treated as an inpatient, and thereafter,

he was referred to NIMS Hospital for better treatment and the

deceased succumbed to injuries on 17.09.2004, while he was

being shifted to the Nims Hospital. The accident occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing

No.AP-25-U-2462. The deceased was aged about 22 years at

the time of the accident and was hale and healthy and was

doing agriculture and also driving an Auto and earning

Rs.10,000/- per month on agriculture and Rs.6,000/- per

month as an Auto driver. Therefore, the petitioners filed the

O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex-

parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying all the

averments made in the claim petition.

5. PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were

marked to prove the petitioners' case. None were examined but

marked Ex.B1-copy of Insurance Policy on behalf of the

respondents.

6. After hearing both sides and after considering the

oral and documentary evidence available on record, the

Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,41,000/- with interest

@ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realisation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the

same, the petitioners have filed the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners

contended that the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier

'13' by taking the age of the deceased's mother instead of '18'

by taking the age of the deceased. The Tribunal erroneously

fixed the deceased's income at Rs.3,000/- per month instead

of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have awarded

just compensation under other heads. Therefore, the amount

awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents

contended that after considering the evidence available on

record, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which

needs no interference.

10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the

manner in which the accident took place has become final as

the respondents do not challenge the same.

11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the petitioners stated that the deceased was doing

agriculture and also driving the Auto, earning Rs.10,000/- per

month on agriculture and Rs.6,000/- per month as an Auto

driver. But, no material is placed with regard to the income of

the deceased. In those circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the

deceased's income at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is very

meagre. In the changed circumstances, even a coolie is getting

a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, as per the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAMCHANDRAPPA

Vs. MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE

COMPANY LIMITED 1, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Apart from

the same, the petitioners are entitled to an addition of 40%

towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others 2. Therefore, the monthly income of

(2011) 13 SCC 236

2017 ACJ 2700

the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-).

From this, 50% is to be deducted towards the personal

expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation 3 as the deceased was a bachelor at

the time of the accident. After deducting 50% towards his

personal and living expenses, the deceased's contribution to

the family comes to Rs.3,150/- per month. As the deceased's

age was 25 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate

multiplier applicable is '18'. Adopting multiplier '18', the total

loss of earnings comes to Rs.3,150/- x 12 x 18 =

Rs.6,80,400/-. The petitioners are entitled to Rs.33,000/-

(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.15,000/- + 10%) towards loss of estate and

funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra).

Further, considering the fact that the petitioners are the

parents of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum

of Rs.40,000/- each i.e., Rs.80,000/- under the head of the

filial consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in

Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram

@ Chuhru Ram and others 4. The Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, which needs no

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

(2018) 18 SCC 130

interference by this Court. Thus, in all, the petitioners are

entitled to a sum of Rs.7,98,400/-.

12. The court below has awarded the rate of interest

at 6 % per annum, and the same needs no interference by this

Court. However, the petitioners are entitled to the interest @

7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount.

13. Though the claimed amount is Rs.5,00,000/-,

invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs.

Rajbir Singh 5, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is

empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed

amount.

14. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced

compensation of Rs.7,98,400/- as against the awarded

amount of Rs.2,41,000/-.

15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed by

enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,41,000/- to

Rs.7,98,400/- (Rupees Seven lakhs ninety eight thousand four

hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. on the

MANU/SC/0480/2013

enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of

realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said

amount with costs and interest, after giving due credit to the

amount already deposited, if any, within two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation

amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners in the

same proportion in which original compensation amounts were

directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. On such deposit,

the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective share

amounts. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the

deficit court fee. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 08.11.2023 Prv