Telangana High Court
M Nagamani/Mani And 2 Others vs Ravi And Another on 5 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1068 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - The Court of Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter be referred as 'the
Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.1943 of 2013, dated 25.01.2018, the
claimants filed the present Appeal seeking for enhancement of the
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that petitioner No.1, who
is the wife of the deceased-Sri M.Sudhakar and who is also
representing petitioner Nos.2 & 3 as they being minors, filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1983
claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest for
the death of her husband-Sri M.Sudhakar (hereinafter be referred
as the deceased) in a road accident. It is stated by her that on
09.10.2011, at about 3.10 P.M., when the deceased was crossing
the road from Mahaboob Mansion gunj, Malakpet, at that time, one
Auto bearing No.AP 11X 9549 came in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed and hit the deceased. As a result, the
deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries all over the body and
MGP,J
died while undergoing treatment. Based on a complaint, P.S.,
Chaderghat, registered a case in Crime No.323 of 2011 under
Section 337 IPC. It is submitted by the petitioner No.1 that the
deceased was aged 28 years at the time of accident and used to
work as Hamali and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month and he
was the sole bread winner of the family. Due to the said accident,
the petitioners lost their bread winner and it is getting very difficult
for them to eke out their livelihood and hence, filed the claim
petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with
interest which is payable by both the respondents jointly and
severally.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed
its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition
including, manner of accident and involvement of crime vehicle. It
also stated that as the driver of the Auto was not holding valid
driving license and that Respondent No.1 handed over the Auto to
the driver knowing pretty well that he does not possess valid
driving license and that the interest claimed by the petitioners is
excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was examined
as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on her behalf. Respondent
MGP,J
No.1 remained exparte. On behalf of Respondent No.2, RWs1 to 3
were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.
6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence
and documents marked on both sides, had partly allowed the claim
petition filed by the petitioners by awarding compensation of
Rs.8,41,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realization which is payable by
Respondent No.1 within one month from the date of order. The
learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against Respondent
No.2.
7. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the
appellants/claim petitioners filed the present Appeal.
8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants and the learned Standing counsel for Respondent No.2-
Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellants is that
the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by
the appellants. He contended that the Tribunal ought to have fixed
liability upon Insurance company also. He also contended that the
Tribunal granted very low amount towards consortium and funeral
expenses and awarded less rate of interest and prays to allow the
MGP,J
appeal by enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering the entire
evidence and documents available on record, awarded reasonable
compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now the point that arise for determination is,
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of
this Court?
POINT:
12. This Court has perused the entire record and also the
evidence adduced on either side. Ex.A1- Copy of FIR shows that
based on the complaint given by PW1, who is the wife of the
deceased, P.S., Chaderghat registered a case in Crime No.323 of
2011 under Section 337 IPC and conducted investigation and filed
Ex.A3- charge sheet against the driver of the auto. Ex.A4- Copy of
Post Mortem Examination Report shows that the deceased died
due to Head Injury. RW1, who is a Senior Legal Executive of
Respondent No.2 company, stated in his evidence that one
Ramavanth Mothilal was the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 11 X
9549 on the date of accident and he was not holding any valid
driving license. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the Auto,
MGP,J
having knowledge about the fact that the driver of the auto do not
possess any valid driving license, had negligently handed over the
said Auto to him and contravened the provisions of M.V.Act which
shows that he is alone liable to pay the compensation for the rash
and negligent driving of the said Auto which resulted in an
accident. Also, as per the MVI report under Ex.A5, the said Auto
was plying on the road without valid permit and fitness certificate.
Exs.B4 & B5 also supports the said contention. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained
in the accident which occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 11X 9549 and the
driver of the auto was not holding any valid driving license which
was established by Respondent No.2 through evidence of RWs 2
and 3 and Exs.B3 and B5. Moreover, the owner of the Auto has
not preferred any appeal stating that the driver of his vehicle was
not responsible for the accident. Hence, the learned Tribunal,
after considering the entire evidence and documents adduced by
both sides had come to the conclusion that the owner of the Auto
i.e., Respondent No.1 in O.P. is liable to pay compensation to the
appellants.
13. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the claimants
claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as
Hamali. However, no proof in that regard has been produced.
MGP,J
Considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2011 and as
the deceased was 28 years old, this Court is of the view that the
income of Rs.4,000/- per month fixed by the Tribunal is meagre
and needs enhancement. Therefore, considering the prevailing
minimum rate of wages, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. In view of the decision of
the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others 1, if 40% is added towards future
prospects then the monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.6,300/-. Since the age of the deceased was 28 years at the time
of accident, after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the
deceased, the net monthly contribution to the family comes to
Rs.4,200/- and as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla
Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2, the
appropriate multiplier is '17'. Thus, applying the multiplier '17',
the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.8,56,800/-. In addition to
that, the claimants are awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of love and
affection, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-
towards transportation and Rs.10,000/-for funeral expenses.
Further, considering the fact that the appellant Nos.2 & 3 being
the minor children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 (6) SCC 121
MGP,J
a sum of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental consortium
as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General
Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and
others 3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.10,16,800/.
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and the
compensation is enhanced from Rs.8,41,600/- to Rs.10,16,800/-
to be paid by Respondent No.1. The enhanced amount shall carry
interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization. The enhanced amount shall be deposited within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.05.02.2024
ysk
(2018) 18 SCC 130
MGP,J
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1068 OF 2018
Dt.05.02.2024
ysk
