Telangana High Court
Malya Kondanna Goud And 2 Ors vs G.Narsimulu And Anr on 15 November, 2023
Bench: K. Sujana
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.680 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated
23.08.2006 in O.P.No.301 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short 'The
Tribunal'), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.1,64,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Four Thousand only) as
compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.00% per annum
thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal
directed respondents to deposit the amount.
3. The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal
under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of the
A.P.M.V Rules for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for
the death of one Male Prasadh in a Motor Vehicle accident.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry and respondent No.2 is the
Insurance Company Limited.
5. Heard Sri K.L.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
6. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellant that
the deceased was working as Motor Cycle Mechanic under one K.Enna
Reddy at Shadnagar, while so, on 30.03.2003 at about 04:30 p.m., he has
SKS,J
MACMA.No.680_2009
repaired T.V.S Max 100 bearing No. AP 22 F 1537 and went on trial of the
same at Pargi-Shadnagar road. While he was passing in the left side near
Electricity Office, the offending lorry came from Pargi side in a high speed,
rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result, he fell
down and sustained injuries and died on the spot.
7. The Tribunal on consideration the entire evidence, both oral and
documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the same vehicle is insured with
respondent No.2, as such, the Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.1,64,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the
quantum, the claimants filed the present appeal.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the liability of the Insurance
Company. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that
the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not sufficient. Now the point for
consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of the
claim.
9. As there is no dispute with regard to the negligence and liability. With
regard to the income of the deceased on the date of accident, as seen from
the record, the deceased is an unmarried son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2
and according to them, deceased was a two-wheeler mechanic and earning
Rs.3,000/- per month. Whereas, the Tribunal not considered the evidence
of P.W.2 and has taken income of the deceased as Rs.36,000/- per annum
accessing the income of Rs.100 per day. As the deceased is working as
SKS,J
MACMA.No.680_2009
Mechanic, which is an admitted fact and also P.W.2 and 4 deposed the same
and accident occurred when he was testing the vehicle, as such, the
employment cannot be disputed. Therefore, the income of the deceased can
be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was 25
years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the
decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another 1 . Since the deceased was a bachelor, his personal and living
expenses shall be deducted at 50% which comes to Rs.1,500/-. Hence, the
petitioners are entitled to Rs.3,24,000/- (Rs.1500x12x18) for loss of annual
future income due to death of the deceased. Under the loss of parental
consortium, the parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each.
Further this Court is inclined to grant Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
10. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the claimants are
entitled to the following amounts:
Heads Amounts
Loss of dependency Rs.3,24,000/-
Loss of parental consortium Rs. 80,000/-
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.15,000 /-
Total Rs.4,34,000/-
(2009) 6 SCC 121
SKS,J
MACMA.No.680_2009
11. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits
that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation
and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond
the claim made which is impermissible under law.
12. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and another 2, the Apex Court while referring
to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 3 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of
the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only,
but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the
absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any
competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim
of an accident."
13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the
claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed.
Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where
the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts
should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and
reasonable extent.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,64,000/- to
Rs.4,34,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from
the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization,
(2011) 10 SCC 756
2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
SKS,J
MACMA.No.680_2009
payable by respondents jointly and severally after deducting the amount, if
any, deposited earlier within one(1) month from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this Judgment and thereafter, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the same. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit
Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
DATE: 15.11.2023
SAI
