Telangana High Court
Manjula Mallika And Another vs S.H. Amar Singh And Another on 26 September, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3230 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioner
aggrieved by the order and decree dated 07.09.2009 passed in
O.P.No.1132 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, R.R. District at
L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter
referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.09.2007, while
the deceased Manjula Marry, aged seven years, was returning
from School to her hostel and when she reached Muthangi
Church at N.H.9, a Lorry bearing No.RJ-14-2G-8067 came in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to
which, the deceased died instantaneously. The police
Patancheru registered a case in Cr.No.360 of 2007 under
Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending Lorry.
Hence, the claim petition is filed by the parents of the deceased
for Rs.2,50,000/- owing to the death of their minor daughter.
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.3230 of 2011
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex
parte. Respondent No.2 filed a counter denying all the petition
allegations.
5. To prove their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1
and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 and adduced no oral
evidence on behalf of respondent No.2, but Ex.B1 was marked
with consent.
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the
Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of
Rs.1,70,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the
present appeal is filed by the petitioners.
7. There is no dispute with regard to involvement of
offending lorry. As such, the Tribunal rightly came to the
conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending lorry based on
Ex.A1/certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2/certified copy of
chargesheet, Ex.A4/certified copy of Inquest and
Ex.A5/certified copy of Postmortem report, apart from the
evidence of eyewitness-PW.2, which requires no interference by
this Court.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.3230 of 2011
8. Coming to the quantum of compensation, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners inter-alia contended that
the Tribunal awarded a very meagre amount that must be
interfered with. He prayed this Court to award Rs.5,00,000/-
to the petitioners in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Meena Devi Vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @
Nemchand Mahto 1 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.
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.
2022 LiveLaw(SC) 841
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.3230 of 2011
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
paid by the respondent No. 4 - United India Insurance
Company within a period of four weeks from today.
Accordingly, prayed to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to
the petitioners. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
also conceded the principle laid in the above judgment.
9. Since there is no conflict as regards the principle
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.
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.3230 of 2011
10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, and the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakh only)
with costs and interest @7% p.a. on the enhanced amount,
from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with
costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any, already
deposited within two months from receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to
withdraw the same subject to payment of the deficit Court fee
within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
26th day of September 2023
BDR
