Kaneez Fatima And 3 Others vs Aska Kiran Raja And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2946 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.806 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri S.Surender Reddy for the

appellants/claimants and Sri. K.Ajay Kumar, learned standing

counsel for respondent no.2-insurance company

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/

claimants dissatisfied with the award passed by the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad (for

short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.716 of 2012, dated 03.02.2015 and

thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.

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

4. On 01.05.2012 at about 11.20 am, while the deceased i.e.,

Mohd.Abdul Majeed was proceeding from Yedpally village to

Nizamabad on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-25-AH-

4043, when he reached the limits of Bapunagar village at a

distance of 6 k.m from Yedpally P.S., one TATA ACE vehicle

bearing registration No.AP-25-W-8611 came in rash and negligent

manner and dashed the against the motor vehicle, due to which,

the deceased received multiple grievous injuries to all over the LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015

body and died on the spot. The Police, Yedpally P.S., registered a

case under Sections 304-A & 337 IPC against the driver of the

offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.

5. The claimants, i.e., appellant Nos.1 & 2 are daughters and

appellant Nos.3 &4 are sons of deceased, have filed claim petition

against owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section

166 (1)(c) of M.V.Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules,

1989 before the MACT, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-

along with interest @ 24% from the date of the accident till the date

of realization.

6. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged about

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

doing real-estate business and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per

month and appellants lost the support of the deceased.

7. The respondent No.1 owner of offending vehicle filed counter

denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and further,

contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd

respondent-insurance company and driver of the offending vehicle

having valid driving licnece and it was in force on the date of

alleged accident and if the claimants are entitled for any LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015

compensation, the same may be granted against the insurance

company and finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

8. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter

denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and

contended that the insured and insurer of motorcycle are

necessary parties and that the compensation claimed by the

claimants is highly exorbitant and excess and therefore, prayed for

dismissal of the claim petition.

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

following issues:

i) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace bearing No.AP-25-W-8611 by its rider?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and against whom ?

iii) To what relief ?

10. In order to substantiate the case, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined

on behalf of the claimants and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. To

disprove the claim of the claimants, RW.1- Sri S.Chandrashekar

Reddy, who is the Legal Officer of insurance company was LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015

examined on behalf of the respondents and Ex.B1-copy of

insurance policy was marked.

11. The MACT, after considering the evidence and material

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

due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Ace bearing registration

No.AP-25-W-8611 and awarded compensation as under:

Sl.No.    Head                                Amount awarded

1         Loss of dependency                 Rs. 5,76,000/-

2         Loss of love & affection       and Rs.   50,000/-
          care
3         Funeral expenses                   Rs.   25,000/-

          Total:                             Rs. 6,51,000/-

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

appellants/claimants submitted that the MACT has erred in not

granting the total amount of compensation as claimed, that the

MACT ought to have considered the earnings of deceased as

Rs.30,000/- per month by doing real estate business. However,

the MACT failed to consider the same and considered only an

amount of Rs.8,000/- per month, which is against the evidence on

record and finally prayed for enhancement of compensation as

claimed by the appellants in the claim petition.

LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015

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

company submitted that the claimants have failed to prove the

income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- by filing supporting

documents and evidence and the MACT, on appreciation of the

evidence and material placed on record, has taken the monthly

salary of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- and awarded just and proper

compensation though there is no evidence, material in support of

income of the deceased and therefore, there is no need to interfere

with the award of the MACT and finally, prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

Consideration:

14. With regard to the quantum of monthly income of the

deceased, the MACT has rightly taken the monthly income at

Rs.8,000/- as deceased was doing real estate business. In the

absence of any proof with regard to the income of the deceased,

this Court is of the considered view that the MACT has rightly

considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- and

thus, does not warrant interference by this Court.

15. With regard to the quantum of awarding compensation

towards future prospects, the MACT erred in not awarding of 10% LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015

of the income of the deceased towards loss of future prospects in

view of the decision of Hon'ble National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs.

Pranay Sethi and others 1. In Pranay Sethi, Hon'ble Apex Court

at paragraph 59.4 held that in case the deceased is self-employed

or on a fixed salary an addition of 10% of established income

should be warrant where the deceased was between the age of 50

to 60 years.

16. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi

(supra), the dependents of the deceased are entitled to a sum of

Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of

estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and therefore,

the award is modified to the above extent.

17. Since the dependents of the deceased are four, one-fourth of

the income to be deducted towards personal and living expenses

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

(supra) at paragraph-30 instead of one-third deducted by MACT.

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

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier is '9' for the

age groups of 56 to 60.

(2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015

Conclusion:

19. In view of the above, the appellants are entitled for the

following compensation:

Sl.No.    Head                               Compensation awarded

1         Loss of dependency                 Rs.8,64,000/-(Rs.8,000/- x 12
                                             x 9) minus one-fourth    i.e.,
                                             Rs.2,16,000/-, which comes to
                                             Rs.6,48,000/-
2         Future prospects                   Rs.64,800/- (i.e., 10% of
                                             annual       income         i.e.,
                                             Rs.6,48,000/-)

3         Total loss of dependency   Rs.6,48,000/- + Rs.64,800 =
                                         Rs.7,12,800/-
4         Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to Rs.   1,60,000/-
          each of the claimants)
5         Loss of estate             Rs.     15,000/-

6         Funeral expenses                   Rs.     15,000/-

          Total   compensation to be Rs.           9,02,800/-
          paid


20.      The   Appeal   is   allowed       enhancing   compensation          from

Rs.6,51,000/- to Rs.9,02,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of realization.

21. The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the compensation

amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of this order by duly adjusting the amounts, if any, already

paid to the claimants. The ratio of apportionment of amounts LNA,J MACMA No.806 of 2015

among the appellants/claimants and the permission to withdrawal

of amounts shall be in accordance with the terms of the award

passed by the MACT. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

[[

____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 06.10.2023 Ktm/kkm