Telangana High Court
Neelam Lalitha vs G Pavalakodi on 13 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.846 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional
District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter be referred as 'the Tribunal'),
in O.P.No.388 of 2013, dated 27.01.2017, the claimants in O.P
filed the present appeal seeking 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, petitioner no.1, who is
the wife and petitioner nos.2 & 3, who are the children of the
deceased- Neelam Papaiah, filed a claim petition seeking
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 18% per
annum on account of death of the deceased- Neelam Papaiah,
who died in a motor vehicle accident on 04.03.2013. As per the
claim petitioners, on 04.03.2013, as per the instructions of the
employer of the deceased, the deceased in the capacity of cleaner
and his driver-Venkanna were proceeding to Miryalguda in DCM
Lorry bearing No.AP-07/TA-9680 and when they reached near
Anjinipuram village, in the meantime, a lorry bearing No.TN-52-D-
6070 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high
speed dashed the lorry. As a result, the deceased along with drvier
MGP,J
and other inmates of DCM sustained injuries and the deceased
died on 07.03.2013 while undergoing treatment in Titan Hospital,
Hyderabad. Based on a complaint, Police of Pidiguralla Police
station registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2013 against the driver
of the lorry bearing No.TN-52/D-6070 for the offences punishable
under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and took up investigation.
It is further contended by the claim petitioners that the deceased
was hale and healthy and was aged 26 years and was earning
Rs.9,000/- per month as cleaner and used to contribute the same
for the welfare and maintenance of his family members and due to
death of the deceased, the petitioners became destitute and hence
claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads
against Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of
the crime vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 did not contest the case and remained
exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments
made in the claim petition including, age, avocation, manner of
accident, employment of the deceased as cleaner, health condition
of the deceased and also denied the driving license of the driver of
the crime vehicle and further contended that the claim of
compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the
claim against it.
MGP,J
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the deceased by name Neelam Papaiah died
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry
bearing No.TN52/D-6070?
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation
amount? If so, to what amount and from whom?
(iii) To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1
and also got examined PWs 2 & 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7.
On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced,
however, Ex.B1- Copy of insurance policy was marked.
7. After considering the evidence and documents filed by both
sides, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of
Rs.6,67,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being
dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the claim petitioners
preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard the submission of Smt.Annapurna Sreeram, learned
counsel for appellants/claim petitioners and Sri A.Ramakrishna
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2-Insurance
company-. Perused the record.
MGP,J
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that though the appellants have proved their case by
adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by relying upon
Exs.A1 to A7, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the
same, had awarded meagre amount towards compensation and
therefore prayed to enhance the same.
10. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent
No.2-Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal, after
considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation
for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now, the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
POINT:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
filed by both sides. Claim petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1
and 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 a lorry driver and eye
witness to the accident, deposed that on 04.03.2013 in the
morning hours, he boarded a DCM Van bearing No.AP-07TA-9680
at Piduguralla in order to go to Miryalguda and the deceased-
MGP,J
Neelam Papaiah along with his driver-Chinthapally Venkanna who
belong to his village, have also boarded the same DCM van. On the
way at about 9.30 AM, when the DCM van reached Anjinipuram
Village of Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur district and was proceeding
on the extreme left side of the road, at that time, one lorry bearing
No.TN-52/D-6070 came in opposite direction in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed the DCM van due to
which himself, the deceased-Neelam Papaiah and Chinthapally
Venkanna and other inmates of DCM van received grievous
injuries. Immediately, all of them were shifted to Government
Hospital, Gurajala in '108' Ambulance. As the condition of the
deceased was very serious, he was referred to Hyderabad and later
came to know that he died while undergoing treatment at
Hyderabad. He also stated that the accident occurred only due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing
No.TN-52/D-6070 and police have recorded his statement. Though
PWs 1 & 2 are cross-examined at length, nothing worthy was
elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
13. PW3, who is working as C.R.M.O in Titan Hospital, deposed
in his evidence that on 05.03.2013 the deceased was admitted in
their hospital and based on the documents under Ex.A6 and
Ex.A7, the deceased was discharged on 07.03.2013 and while
MGP,J
undergoing treatment, he died. In the cross-examination, he
stated that he has no personal knowledge about Exs.A6 & A7. Only
by seeing the Tital Hospital letter head and stamp impression, he is
deposing that Sri N.Papaiah might have taken treatment in Titan
Hospital and he has no personal acquaintance with Dr.Ali Zaheer,
who signed Exs.A6 & A7 and he cannot identify his signature.
14. It is pertinent to state that the learned Tribunal had
discarded the evidence of PW3 and had not awarded the entire
amount towards medical expenses and awarded only an amount of
Rs.30,000/- This Court is of the considered opinion that Ex.A6-
Bunch of medical bills appears to be original documents.
Admittedly, the deceased has undergone treatment in Titan
Hospital. Therefore, this Court is inclined to award an amount of
Rs.1,38,260/- towards medical expenses which are marked under
Ex.A6. Further, the learned Tribunal had answered issue no.1 in
favour of the petitioners stating that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing
No.TN52/D-6070 for which interference of this Court is not
necessary.
15. Now, coming to the compensation awarded, the learned
Tribunal took the monthly income of the deceased @ 4,500/- as no
income proof was filed. However, considering the fact that even as
MGP,J
per Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A5-charge sheet, the deceased was working
as a cleaner, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the
deceased as Rs.5,000/-. As the deceased was aged 26 years at the
time of accident, 40% is added towards future prospects to the
established income of the deceased as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1. Hence, the future monthly income
of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/-. As the number of
dependants are three in number, if 1/3rd is deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased, then the net monthly income
comes to Rs.4,667/-. By applying the relevant multiplier of '17' as
per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation 2,the total loss of dependency comes
to Rs.9,52,068/-. The appellants are also entitled for a sum of
Rs.1,38,260/- towards medical expenses, a sum of Rs.77,000/-
towards conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement
thereon) as prescribed in the dictum of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (referred supra). Apart from that,
considering the fact that the appellant Nos.2 & 3 being the minor
children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of
Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental consortium as per the
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3. Thus, in all, the
appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.12,47,328 /-.
16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,67,000/- to
Rs.12,47,328/-. The appellants are directed to pay the deficit
Court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation. The
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
enhanced compensation along with interest at 7.5% p.a. 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, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Dt.13.02.2024
ysk
(2018) 18 SCC 130
