Telangana High Court
Mohammed Ismail vs P Vijaya Babu on 8 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1991 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXIV Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal), in
M.V.O.P.No.947 of 2016, dated 08.01.2018, the Appellants/claim
petitioners have filed the present appeal seeking for enhancement
of compensation amount.
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, who
are the parents of the deceased, have filed a petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of
Rs.28,00,000/- on account of death of Sri Mohammed Affan
(hereinafter be referred as deceased), who died in a road accident
that occurred on 29.12.2015. As per the version of the petitioners,
on 29.12.2015, at about 11.30 PM, the deceased-Mohammed Affan
was driving his car bearing No.AP 10AR 6677 from Chennai
towards Hyderabad along with his employee and another person
and when they reached Subbaiahpalem X Road in Guntur District,
at that time, one Lorry bearing No.TN 32C 7260 was proceeding in
the opposite direction and the driver of the said lorry drove the
vehicle at a high speed and came to the extreme right side of the
MGP,J
road and dashed to the car of the deceased in opposite direction
due to which the deceased received multiple injuries all over the
body. Immediately, he was shifted in Ambulance to Government
Hospital, Narsaraopet and after First Aid, the deceased was shifted
to GBR Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment and admitted as
inpatient on 02.02.2016, thereafter on 30.12.2015, the deceased
was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and
was admitted in Owaisi Hospital, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad and
finally on 03.01.2016, at about 5.30 PM, the deceased succumbed
to the injuries in Owaisi Hospital due to the injuries sustained in
the accident. It is further contended that the Police, Rompicherla,
Guntur District, had registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2015
under Section 304-A IPC and took up investigation. It is further
contended that the deceased was aged 25 years and was doing
business under the name and style of M/s.Marvel Enterprises at
Machlikaman, Hyderabad and used to supply Sanitaryware,
Automobiles parts and Accessories to the Dealers and used to earn
more than Rs.3,00,000/- per annum and due to the sudden
demise of the deceased, the petitioners underwent pain, suffering
and mental agony for loss of earning member.
4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the Lorry bearing
No.TN 32C-7260 and Respondent No.3, who is the driver of the
said vehicle filed counters admitting that Respondent No.1 is the
MGP,J
owner of the Lorry and Respondent No.3 is the driver employed by
him and at the time of accident, respondent No.3 was driving the
vehicle, however, denied that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of Respondent No.3 and stated that the
accident occurred only due to the negligent driving of the driver of
the car which came in opposite direction and which resulted in the
accident and prayed to dismiss the claim against Respondent
Nos.1 & 3.
5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter denying
the averments of the claim petition including, age, occupation,
income of the deceased and further denied the driving license of
the driver of the lorry and further contended that the owner and
insurer of the car bearing No.AP 10AR 6677 are necessary parties
to the petition and therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties and further contended that the claim
of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss
the claim against it.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the
following issues:-
i. Whether the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.TN 32C 7260
which resulted in the death of deceased Mohammed
Affan?
MGP,J
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
iii.To what relief?
7. Before the Tribunal, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW1,
got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of
Respondent Nos.1 to 3, no witness was examined. However,
Ex.B1-Insurance Policy was marked on behalf of Respondent No.2.
8. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both
sides, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of
Rs.18,29,400/- with interest @ 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the
same, the present appeal by the claimants.
9. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants/claim petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for
Respondent No.2-Insurance company.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that thought the claim petitioners have proved their
case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by
relying upon Exs.A1 to A14, but the learned Tribunal, without
considering the same, has awarded meagre amount. Hence,
prayed to enhance the compensation amount by allowing the
appeal.
MGP,J
11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent
No.2-Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal, after
considering all the aspects, has awarded reasonable compensation
for which interference of this Court is not necessary.
12. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is,
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
filed by both sides. The father of the deceased was examined as
PW1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition, deposed
about the manner of the accident. However, as he is not an eye
witness to the accident, he got examined PW2, who is an eye
witness - cum- inmate of the car. He deposed that on the date of
accident i.e. on 29.12.2015 at about 11.30 P.M, himself, deceased
and Mohd. Ahmed were proceedings in a Swift Dzire car bearing
No.AP 10AR 6677 from Chennai towards Hyderabad and reached
near Subbaiahapalem X Road in Guntur District and at the time of
accident, the deceased was driving the car and PW2 was sitting on
the left back side seat and as the new high way was being
constructed on the left side, there was traffic diversion onto the
right side of the road and when the car entered into right side of
the road and was proceeding very slowly by using light dippers
MGP,J
from extreme left corner of the road, at that time, one Lorry bearing
No.TN 32C 7260 was proceeding from Nakarikallu side towards
Addanki in opposite direction. The driver of the said lorry drove
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while trying to
overtake the vehicle from right side, came to extreme right corner
of the road knowing the traffic diversion and dashed their car in
opposite direction due to which, the front portion of deceased's car
got crushed and as a result, the deceased Mohammed Affan
received grievous injuries and fell unconscious. Immediately, they
were shifted to Government Hospital, Narsaraopet, after first aid,
the deceased was shifted to GBR Hospital, Guntur for better
treatment and on 30.12.2015, deceased was shifted to Apollo
Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and was admitted as
inpatient and later from there to Owaisi Hospital, Kanchanbagh,
Hyderabad, for further treatment and while undergoing treatment
in the said hospital, the deceased died on 03.01.2016 at 5.30 PM
in Owaisi hospital due to the injuries sustained in the accident and
he himself lodged a complaint in the police station by stating that
the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the lorry. PWs 1 & 2 were cross-examined at length.
Nothing worthy was elicited to disbelieve their evidence. Apart
from the oral evidence, the petitioner has relied upon the
documents marked under Exs.A1 to A14. Ex.A1- Copy of FIR,
Ex.A2- Certified Copy of Charge sheet discloses about the manner
MGP,J
of accident and the investigation done by the police and charge
sheet was laid against the driver of the lorry. Ex.A3- Copy of
inquest report also reveals the manner of accident and death of the
deceased. Ex.A4- Copy of PME report shows the cause of death of
the deceased was due to head injury. Ex.A5- Certified copy of MVI
report shows that the accident has not occurred due to any
mechanical defect. Ex.A6- Copy of Part-II statements, Ex.A7-
Certified copy of sketch plan of the scene of offence, all these
establish the manner of accident. Ex.A8 is the Original MBA
Degree Certificate of the deceased. Ex.A9 is the Income tax returns
for the year 2016-2017, Ex.A10 is the Commercial tax registration
certificate of Marvel Enterprises Ex.A11 is the Bank statement of
the deceased's business account. Ex.A12 is the driving license of
the deceased. Ex.A13 is the pan card of the deceased and Ex.A14
are the Medical bills for Rs.2,87,114/-.
14. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute regarding the
manner of accident, death of the deceased and also the treatment
undergone by the deceased before his death. Ex.A8 shows the
educational qualification of the deceased and Exs.A9, A10, A11
and A13 are the income tax returns, commercial tax registration
certificate, deceased's bank statement and PAN card.
15. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the deceased was a
business man and doing business under the name and style of
MGP,J
Marvel Enterprises, Sanitary ware and supply of Automobiles and
Accessories to the dealers. However, coming to the income of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the
deceased @ 12,000/- per month which appears to be meagre and
this Court needs interference of the same. No doubt, even after the
death of the deceased, the business will continue. But, the family
members of the deceased would certainly undergo loss of income
and love and affection which can't be compensated in terms of
money. Therefore, in the above circumstances, this Court is
inclined to fix the income of the deceased @ 20,000/- per month.
As the deceased was aged 25 years at the time of accident, 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 which comes to Rs.28,000/-. As the deceased
is a bachelor, 50% is deducted towards his personal expenses.
Then the future monthly income of the deceased comes to
Rs.14,000. Since the deceased was 25 years old at the time of the
accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' 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.30,24,000/-(Rs.14,000 x 12 x 18). Apart from this, the
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.15,000/-to the appellants
towards cremation charges which requires no interference by this
Court. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for a compensation
of Rs.30,39,000/-.
16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.18,29,400/- to
Rs.30,39,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization,
payable by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 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 same
as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. There shall be no
order as to costs.
17. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Dt.08.02.2024
ysk
