Geesa Narasamma And 4 Others vs Bhookya Venkanna And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2808 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.16 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri P.Sriharsha Reddy for the

appellants/claimants and Sri. A.V.K.Prasad, learned standing

counsel for respondent no.3.

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

claimants dissatisfied with the award passed by the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge,

Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.211 of

2009, dated 24.07.2014 and thereby seeking enhancement of

compensation.

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

4. On 17.07.2008, the deceased i.e., Geesa Shakar went to

Suryapet on personal work and after completion of his work, he

boarded an Auto bearing registration No.AP-24-V-2122 to go to

their native place Jajireddygudem and at 8.00 pm. While the Auto

was proceeding near Moodu Motala Bavi, a Tractor-Trailer bearing

registration No.AP-24-W-0515 and AP-24-W-0516 dashed the said

Auto from opposite direction and due to which, the deceased LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015

received grievous injuries and died. The Police, Arvapally P.S.,

registered a case in Crime No.37/2008 under Sections 304-A and

337 IPC against the respondent No.1-driver of the offending vehicle

and filed charge sheet.

5. The claimants, i.e., petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 are children and petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are parents of

deceased, have filed claim petition against driver, owner of the

vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 read with

Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT claiming

compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest from the date of

the accident till the date of realization.

6. The deceased was aged about 29 years as on the date of

accident, hale and healthy and was a private employee and was

getting an income of Rs.5,000/- per month and petitioners lost the

support of the deceased.

7. The respondent No.1-driver and respondent No.2-owner of

offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent-Insurance

Company filed counter denying the allegations in the claim petition

and contended that the driver of the Tractor was not having valid LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015

driving license and further, the insured and insurer of auto are

necessary parties and that the compensation claimed by the

petitioners is highly exorbitant and excess and therefore, prayed

for dismissal of the claim petition.

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

following issues:

i) Whether the deceased Geesa Shankar died in the motor vehicle accident, if so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-24-W-0515 - AP-24-W-0516 ?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom it should be collected ?

iii) To what relief ?

9. In order to substantiate the case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. To

disprove the claim of the appellant, the 3rd respondent-insurance

company did not examine any witnesses, but marked insurance

policy is marked as Ex.B1 on its behalf.

10. The MACT after considering the evidence placed on record,

came to a conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015

negligent driving of the Tractor-Trailer bearing registration Nos.

AP-24-W-0515 & AP-24-W-0516 and awarded compensation of

Rs.4,01,0000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date

of petition till the date of depositing of amount. The driver, owner

of the offending vehicle and the Insurance company i.e.,

respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held to be jointly and severally liable to

pay the said compensation.

11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the

appellants contended that MACT had wrongly awarded the

compensation without appreciating the oral, documentary evidence

and the income of the deceased. He contended that the MACT

ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses instead of

1/3rd as the dependants are five in number. He further contended

that MACT had failed to take future prospects into consideration

and granted less compensation. He further contended that MACT

had wrongly awarded the compensation towards consortium, loss

of estate, funeral expenses etc. and finally prayed to allow the

appeal.

12. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the

following decisions:

LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015

i) Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1;

ii) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2;

iii) Jyoti and others vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., and others 3

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

insurance company would submit that on due consideration of the

evidence and material placed, the Hon'ble MACT has rightly

awarded the compensation and the grounds raised by the

appellants are untenable and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the

appeal.

Consideration :

14. With regard to issue no.1, on consideration of evidence and

the material placed on record, the MACT had come to the

conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting in death of

the deceased.

(2009) 6 SCC 121

(2017) 16 SCC 680

2023 ACJ 341 LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015

15. With regard to the income of the deceased, the MACT had

taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-, which is

in dispute in the present appeal.

16. In Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Rayal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 4, 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 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."

17. 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),

(2011) 13 SCC 236 LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015

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

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

evidence.

18. In so far as the deduction towards personal and living

expenses is concerned, the deceased was married and he is

survived by wife, two children and parents, i.e., in total five

dependents. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Sarla Verma (supra) at paragraph-30, the standard deduction

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be

one-third where the number of dependent family members is 2 to

3, one-fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4

to 6 and one-forth where the number of dependent family members

exceeds six. In the present case, total dependents of the deceased

are five. However, it is informed that during the pendency of

appeal, mother of the deceased expired, thereby the number of

dependents of deceased is now reduced to four. The Tribunal did

not treat the father of the deceased as dependent, despite he being

aged 74 years. In considered view of this Court, father of the

deceased is also be treated as dependent and thus, total

dependents of the deceased comes to four. Therefore, as per the LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma, the deduction

towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has to be

one-fourth (1/4th).

Conclusion:

19. In considered view of this Court, monthly earnings of the

deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/- and annual earnings comes

to Rs.54,000/-. Thus, compensation towards loss of earnings is

enhanced from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.54,000/-. Since the total

dependents of the deceased are four, one-fourth of the income of

the deceased requires to be deducted towards his personal

expenses.

20. In Pranay Sethi (supra), 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 40% of established income should be warrant

where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.

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

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and Jyothi (supra), the

multiplier is '17' for the age groups of 26 to 30. In the instant

appeal, though the MACT observed that the age of the deceased LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015

was 30 years at the time of accident, ultimately the MACT has

taken the multiplier '16' treating that age of the deceased could be

between thirty two to thirty five years without recording any

reasons. Therefore, the MACT ought to have considered the age of

the deceased as 30 years and thus, should have applied multiplier

of '17' instead of '16'.

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

following compensation:

Sl.No.    Head                           Compensation awarded

1         Loss of dependency             Rs.9,18,000/-(Rs.4,500/- x 12 x
                                         17) minus one-fourth i.e.,
                                         Rs.2,29,500/-, which comes to
                                         Rs.6,88,500/-
2         Future prospects               Rs.2,75,400/- (i.e., 40% of
                                         annual income i.e., Rs.6,88,500/-)

3         Total loss of dependency       Rs.6,88,500/- + Rs.2,75,400 =
                                           Rs.9,63,900/-

4         Loss of estate                 Rs.    15,000/-

5         Loss of wife consortium        Rs.    40,000/-

6         Loss      of      parental Rs.        80,000/-
          consortium to two children
          (Rs.40,000/- each)
7         Funeral expenses               Rs.    15,000/-

8         Total compensation to be Rs.11,13,900/-
          paid
                                                                       LNA,J
                                                        MACMA No.16 of 2015




23.   The    Appeal   is   allowed    enhancing   compensation      from

Rs.4,01,000/- to Rs.11,13,900/- with interest @ 6% 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 no.1-Insurance Company shall deposit

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

the date of receipt of copy of this order.

24. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

[[

____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm LNA,J MACMA No.16 of 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

M.A.C.M.A.NO.16 OF 2015

Date: 29.09.2023

Ktm/kkm