Telangana High Court
A Nagaraju, Secunderabad vs Ganesh G, Karimnagar Dist And 1 Other on 4 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.666 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
directed against order and decree dated 23.06.2016 in
M.V.O.P.No.495 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The said
M.V.O.P. filed by the petitioner therein seeking compensation for
death of one Avula Laxmi (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased')
was allowed granting compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Dissatisfied
with the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of
petitioner before the Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the son of the
deceased and he filed the present case seeking compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. The deceased was
aged about 40 years as on the date of the accident. On
20.06.2013, at about 11:30 AM, the deceased was travelling in a
tractor near Mohanraopet, Koratla, Karimnagar District and a
MGP,J
MACMA_666_2017
DCM i.e., goods vehicle bearing No.AP 15 Y 6933 driven in rash
and negligent manner by its driver hit the tractor. As a result,
accident occurred and the deceased died. Respondent No.1 is the
owner of the said goods vehicle bearing No.AP 15 Y 6933 and the
said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 under a valid
insurance policy as on the date of the accident. Hence, the
present claim petition is filed by the petitioner.
4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed
its counter denying the averments of the claim petition such as
manner of the accident, injuries sustained by the deceased, death
of the deceased, loss of dependency of the petitioner on the
earnings of the deceased and also the driving license of the driver
of said goods vehicle. It is also contended that the claim of the
petitioner is exorbitant and not genuine. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the claim petition.
5. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined P.Ws.1
and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of respondent
No.2, R.W.1 was got examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were got
marked.
MGP,J
MACMA_666_2017
6. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the
Tribunal held that the petitioner has successfully established his
case. Hence, the claim petition was allowed holding that both the
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/-. Dissatisfied by the same, the present appeal is
filed at the instance of the petitioner.
7. Heard, both sides.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contended that
though, the petitioner was entitled for more compensation, the
Tribunal erred in restricting the compensation amount to the
claim of the petitioner. It is also contended that the Tribunal has
not considered future prospects and other heads while calculating
compensation for the death of the deceased. It is further
contended that the Tribunal erred in determining the income of
the deceased on lower side. Hence, prayed to enhance the
compensation granted by the Tribunal to the petitioner.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent
No.2/respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal after
considering all the aspects has granted just and reasonable
MGP,J
MACMA_666_2017
compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Now point for determination is as follows:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as granted
by the Tribunal?"
Point:-
11. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
placed on record by both the parties. The petitioner being minor
got examined his guardian as P.W.1, who reiterated the contents
of the claim petition. He also got examined P.W.2, who is
eyewitness to the accident. He deposed about the occurrence of
the accident and death of the deceased in such accident. He
deposed that the accident occurred when the goods vehicle
bearing No.AP 15 Y 6933 came in high speed in rash and negligent
manner and hit the tractor in which the deceased was travelling.
In the said accident, an iron rod of the said goods vehicle directly
hit the deceased and she sustained fatal injuries. The deceased
was immediately shifted to Jagitial Government Hospital and later,
to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for better treatment. However,
while undergoing treatment, she succumbed to such injuries on
MGP,J
MACMA_666_2017
22.06.2013. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 categorically denied
that there was negligence of the driver of tractor in which the
deceased was travelling.
12. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.2 one
P. Raghavender was examined as R.W.1. He deposed that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of tractor in
which the deceased was travelling and that he permitted the
deceased as passenger on tractor. Accordingly, the driver of the
said tractor and trailer also contributed in the occurrence of the
accident. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had no
personal knowledge with regard to occurrence of the accident.
13. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of
the accident and death of the deceased in such accident. There is
also no dispute with regard to involvement of goods vehicle
bearing No.AP 15 Y 6933 owned by respondent No.1 in the
accident. It is also not disputed that the said vehicle was having
valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident. The only
dispute raised by respondent No.2 before the Tribunal is with
regard to contributory negligence of the driver of the tractor in
which the deceased was travelling along with the negligence of the
MGP,J
MACMA_666_2017
goods vehicle i.e., DCM. The Tribunal after considering the
evidence on the record as there was no ample evidence with regard
to contributory negligence has rightly held that there was no such
contributory negligence. Further, police after thorough
investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the crime
vehicle alone. Thus, the Tribunal held both the respondents
jointly and severally liable for the accident and directed them to
pay compensation for the death of the deceased.
14. Furthermore, it is contended by respondent No.2 before the
Tribunal that the driver of DCM i.e., goods vehicle involved in the
accident, owned by respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving
license as on the date of the accident. However, the Tribunal after
considering all the evidence placed on record rejected said
contention and held that both the respondents are liable to pay
compensation for the death of the deceased.
15. The only challenge in the present appeal is with regard to
quantum of compensation. Though, the Tribunal has calculated
the compensation has restricted the same to the claim of the
petitioner i.e., Rs.6,00,000/- and aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is preferred. It is settled principle that the
MGP,J
MACMA_666_2017
petitioner, if he is entitled for more compensation than what is
claimed by him, he can be granted the same subject to payment of
required Court fee. In the said circumstances, this Court is
inclined to determine the quantum of compensation afresh.
16. According to the petitioner, the age of the deceased is 40
years at the time of the accident, the same is not disputed and no
contrary evidence is produced by respondent No.2. Hence, the age
of the deceased is considered as 40 years by the Tribunal and this
Court is also inclined to consider the same. Coming to the income
of the deceased, the petitioner contended that the deceased was
working as labourer and she was earning Rs.300/- per day, but
no supporting evidence is produced by the petitioner. In the said
circumstances, the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased,
her nature of work as labourer and her contribution to household
work determined her monthly income as Rs.4,500/-. This Court
is of the opinion that the same is just and reasonable and
interference of this Court is unwarranted. Since the deceased was
40 years old at the time of the death, in view of the decision of the
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
MGP,J
MACMA_666_2017
Sethi and others 1, 25% towards future prospects can duly be
added to the established income of the deceased. Thus, the future
monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,625/- [Rs.4,500/-
+ Rs.1,125/-(25% of Rs.4,500/-)]. Since the petitioner herein is
only dependent of the deceased, as per the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another 2, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased. After deducting, 1/3rd of the
monthly income of Rs.5,625/-, the monthly income comes to
Rs.3,750/- [Rs.5,625/- - Rs.1,875/- (1/3rd of Rs.5,625/-)].
Further, as per Sarla Varma (cited 2nd supra), the appropriate
multiplier is '15' as the deceased was 40 years old at the time of
the accident. Thus, applying the multiplier '15', the total loss of
dependency comes to Rs.6,75,000/- (Rs.3,750/- X 12 months X
15). In addition to that, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.77,000/-
under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement
thereon). Hence, in all the total quantum of compensation comes
to Rs.7,52,000/-.
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 (6) SCC 121
MGP,J
MACMA_666_2017
17. Coming to the interest on the compensation amount, this
Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has granted just and
reasonable interest and interference of this Court is unwarranted.
Hence, the same is hereby confirmed.
18. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is allowed enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal in
the impugned order from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,52,000/- and rest
of the findings of the Tribunal are hereby confirmed. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein are directed to deposit the enhanced amount
to the credit of O.P. along with accrued interest within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment as
both of them are jointly and severally liable. On such deposit, the
appellant/petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
The enhanced amount shall be paid to the appellant/petitioner
subject to payment of deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as
to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 04.01.2024
GVR
