Telangana High Court
Smt. Zareena Begum And 2 Others vs Anju Reddy And Another on 5 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.229 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal), passed
in O.P.No.433 of 2008, dated 08.12.2019, the Appellants/claim
petitioners have filed the present appeal for enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioners have
filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of death of
Sri Mahboob Khan, who died in a motor vehicle accident on
01.12.2007. As per the claim petitioners, who are the wife and
parents of the deceased, when the deceased was proceeding on his
motor cycle bearing No.AP-28X-5215 from N.S.Kunta to Hassan
Nagar, Hyderabad and when he reached near Danamma Jhopdi
Tadba, Hyderabad at about 10.00 PM, a lorry bearing No.KA-39-
4808, which was being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent
manner at a high speed, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased
and ran over him. As a result, the deceased died instantaneously.
Based on a complaint, Bahadurpura Police registered a case in
MGP,J
Crime No.275 of 2007 against the driver of the crime lorry. As per
the claim petitioners, the deceased was hale and healthy and was
aged 32 years and used to work as Electrical Supervisor with M/s.
AH Electricals and Engineers and Consultants and used to draw
salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to the sudden demise of the
deceased, the petitioners lost their earnings as they are dependent
upon the earnings of the deceased. As a result, they have claimed
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent
No.2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of
the claim petition including, rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the crime lorry and causing accident and further
contended that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant
and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the
following issues:-
i. Whether the accident was occurred on 01.12.2007 due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing
No.KA-39-4808 and in the said accident, the deceased died due
to injuries received by him in that accident?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation and if
so, from whom and to what amount?
iii. To what relief?
MGP,J
6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW1,
got examined PWs.2 & 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1
to X4. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral or documentary
evidence was adduced.
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and
documents filed on both sides, had awarded an amount of
Rs.4,23,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied with the same, the
present appeal by the appellants/claim petitioners.
8. Heard the submission made by Sri V.Atchuta Ram, learned
counsel for the appellants and Smt.V.Durga, learned Standing
Counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the
entire record.
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants/claim petitioners is that though the claim petitioners
have prove the case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence
and also relying upon relevant documents under Exs.A1 to A8 and
also Exs.X1 to X4, but the learned Tribunal, without considering
the same, had erroneously awarded a meagre compensation and
hence prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
MGP,J
10. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for Insurance
Company argued that the learned Tribunal, after considering all
the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation. In fact, the
learned Tribunal had taken the multiplier '17' instead of '16' and
awarded huge amount and therefore, interference of this Court is
unwarranted.
11. Now the point that emerges for consideration is
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
12. A perusal of the entire evidence available on record discloses
that the 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, had
reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the
manner of accident. As she is not an eye witness to the accident,
she got examined PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident. PW2
in his evidence has stated about the manner of accident and also
stated that the accident occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-39-4808
which came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed the motor cycle and ran over him. The evidence of PW2 is
corroborated with the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned
Tribunal, considering the evidence of PWs 1 & 2, coupled with FIR
and charge sheet, came to a conclusion that the accident occurred
MGP,J
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry
bearing No.KA-39-4808.
13. Now, coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal,
as per the claim petitioners, the deceased was aged 32 years and
was working as Electrical Supervisor with M/s. AH Electricals
Engineers and Consultants and was earning Rs.6,000/- per
month. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have relied
upon Ex.A6-Salary Certificate issued by the Proprietor of
A.H.Electricals wherein, the salary of the deceased is shown as
Rs.6,000/- per month. In order to prove Ex.A6, the claim
petitioners have got examined PW3, who is a Project Manager
working in M/s.AH Electricals Engineers and Consultants, deposed
about the earnings of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month.
Therefore, the income of the deceased was also proved.
Furthermore, Ex.A3-Inquest report also discloses the occupation of
the deceased. Further, Ex.A8- ITI Certificate shows the
Educational qualification of the deceased. In fact, PW3, apart from
his oral evidence, has also got marked Exs.X1 to X4 which are
Ex.X1- Authorization letter dated 11.08.2009, Ex.X2-Copy of
Electrical Contractors Licence, Ex.X3-Register of wages and
Ex.X-4-Attendance Register. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that
the petitioners have prove their case by examining PW3 and also by
relying upon the relevant documents to prove the income of the
MGP,J
deceased. Therefore, Ex.A6-Salary Certificate shows that the
deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, this Court is
inclined to interfere with the income awarded by the Tribunal and
considers desirable to fix the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.6,000/-. As the age of the deceased at the time of accident was
32 years, he is entitled for addition of 40% towards future
prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1. If 1/3rd of the amount is deducted
towards his personal expenses as the number of dependants are 3,
then the future monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.67,200. Since the deceased was 32 years old at the time of the
accident, the appropriate multiplier is '16' as per the guidelines
laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 2. Therefore, the total loss of dependency comes to
Rs.10,75,200/-/-(Rs.5,600 x 12 x 16). Apart from this, the
appellants are also entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards
los of consortium, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate as ordered by the learned
Tribunal. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for a
compensation of Rs.10,90,200/-.
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
14. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,23,000/- to
Rs.10,90,200/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per
the apportionment made by the Tribunal. 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
