Telangana High Court

Manju Sanjay Singh vs Basiruddin Jamaluddin Ansari on 11 June, 2024

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

         M.A.C.M.A.Nos.3407 of 2019 and 417 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao)

These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment, since M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 filed by the

Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.417 of 2021 filed by the

petitioners/claimants are directed against the very same order

and decree dated 15.04.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.384 of 2014

on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for

short 'the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.06.2014 at about

2.30 p.m., the deceased Sanjay Singh was driving a lorry

bearing No.MH-04-GC-8549 from Aurangabad to Hyderabad

and when he reached near Budera Village, Munipally Mandal

on NH-65 Road, the lorry driver bearing No. GJ-11Y-7200 came

on the wrong side at a high speed in a rash and negligent 2 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021

manner and dashed against the vehicle driven by the deceased

from the opposite direction. Resultantly, the deceased sustained

severe injuries and succumbed to the said injuries while

undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital. The Police Munipally

registered a case in Cr.No.60 of 2014 for the offences punishable

under Sections 304-A and 337 of the IPC against the driver of

the offending vehicle. The deceased was aged about 40 years at

the time of the accident and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month

through transport business and Rs.10,000/- per month as a

driver. Therefore, the petitioners, who are the wife, minor

children and parents of the deceased, filed the claim petition

seeking compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent

filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the

claim petition.

5. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd

respondent-Insurance Company, RW-1 was examined and

marked Ex.B-1-Copy of the Insurance Policy.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred 3 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle and accordingly awarded an amount of

Rs.31,94,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization to be paid by respondents

jointly and severally. Challenging the same, M.A.C.M.A.No.3407

of 2019 is filed by the Insurance Company and

M.A.C.M.A.No.417 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended

that though the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month

as per Exs.A-6 to A.10, the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the

deceased's income at Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, The

Tribunal has failed to evaluate the oral evidence of PW-3 and the

documentary evidence of Ex-A9, which showed that the

damages incurred to the vehicle was beyond repair and the

same had to be considered as a total loss. The Tribunal has not

awarded just compensation under other heads and therefore,

the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and

unjustifiable.

4 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021

9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the 2nd

respondent-Insurance Company has contended that there is no

evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. The sole oral

evidence of PW-3 has been relied upon to claim that the

deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. The Tribunal has

rightly taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-

per month. Further, with regard to damages to the vehicle, the

evidence of PW-3 discloses that the vehicle bearing No.MH-04-

GC-8549 was completely damaged in the accident and that PW-

3 inspected the same and gave damage certificate (Ex.A-9). But,

the petitioners did not place any estimation of damage of the

said vehicle. Considering the said evidence, the Tribunal has

rightly declined to grant damages to the vehicle in question. The

Tribunal has rightly considered all the aspects and passed the

impugned order and the same needs no interference by this

Court.

10. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the

Tribunal, having framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident

had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver and having considered the evidence of PW.2,

an eye witness to the accident, coupled with the documentary 5 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021

evidence i.e., Ex.A-1-FIR and Ex.A-2-charge-sheet, rightly came

to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and has

answered in favour of the petitioners and against the

respondents. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with

the Tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

based on the evidence of PW-3, the petitioners stated that the

deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month cumulatively, by

way of transport business and also by working as a driver.

However, there is no documentary evidence to prove the same.

The Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.15,000/- per month, which is on the lower side and

therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to fix the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.20,000/-. Considering the

available evidence on record, the Tribunal has fixed the age of

the deceased at 40 years. Since the deceased was self-employed,

the petitioners are entitled to 40% of the deceased's income

towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. 6 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021

Pranay Sethi 1. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased

comes to Rs. 28,000/- (Rs. 20,000 + 40%). The annual income

of the deceased would come to Rs. 3,36,000/-. The deduction

towards the personal expenses of the deceased has been clearly

laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay

Sethi (supra). In the instant case, the Tribunal erred by

wrongly deducting 1/5th of the income, when it ought to have

deducted 1/4th towards the personal expenditure of the

deceased, in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra) as the dependants

are five in number. Hence, the deduction towards the personal

expenditure of the deceased is liable to be fixed at 1/4th of the

deceased's income. Accordingly, 1/4th of the annual income is

deducted which comes to Rs. 2,52,000/- (Rs.3,36,000 -

Rs.84,000). As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2, the

appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '15',

as the deceased was aged 40 years at the time of the accident.

Adopting multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency comes to

Rs. 37,80,000/-.

2017 (16) SCC 680.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021

12. As per Pranay Sethi (supra), petitioner No.1 is entitled to

a sum of Rs. 48,400/- (Rs. 40,000/- +10%+10%) towards loss of

spousal consortium. The petitioners are also entitled to a sum of

Rs. 36,300/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards

loss of estate and funeral expenses. Further, since petitioner

Nos. 2 and 3 are minors, this Court grants a sum of Rs.

40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium and

petitioner Nos. 4 and 5, being the parents of the deceased, are

entitled to a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards the loss of filial

consortium, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanu Ram alias

Chuhru Ram 3.

13. With regards to the damages to the vehicle, learned

counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners are entitled

to a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the same. Learned counsel

for the respondent insurance company has opposed the same,

contending that there is no proper assessment of the damage

and that the extent of the damage to the vehicle has not been

quantified. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly disregarded Ex.A9

3 2018 18 SCC 130 8 SP,J & RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021

Vehicle Damage Certificate and rejected the petitioners' claim

under the head of vehicle damage.

14. A perusal of Ex.A9 discloses that extensive damages have

occurred to the vehicle in question and that the vehicle is lying

at the workshop unrepaired. However, the evidence does not

state the vehicle's value. A perusal of Ex.A8 shows that the

vehicle's permit is valid from 21.09.2013 to 20.09.2018, which

indicates that the vehicle is relatively old and in a damaged

condition. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to award an

amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- under the head of vehicle damages.

15. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to compensation

as indicated below:

       S.No.    Particulars               Amount

       1.       Loss of Dependency        Rs. 37,80,000/-

       2.       Loss     of   spousal Rs. 48,400/-
                consortium to the 1st
                petitioner
                (Rs.40,000/-
                +10%+10%)
       3.       Conventional Heads Rs. 36,300/-
                (Funeral     Expenses
                and Loss of Estate)
                (Rs.15,000/-
                +Rs.15,000/-
                +10%+10%)
                               9                                 SP,J & RRN,J
                                     M.A.C.M.A.No.3407 of 2019 & 417 of 2021



       4.        Loss    of    Parental    Rs. 80,000/-
                 Consortium
       4.        Loss      of     Filial   Rs. 80,000/-
                 Consortium
       5.        Damages      to    the    Rs. 2,50,000/-
                 Vehicle
                 Total Compensation        Rs. 42,74,700/-

16. With regard to the interest, the Tribunal awarded interest

at 9% per annum, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with

the same. However, this Court grants interest at 7.5% per

annum on the enhanced amount, from the date of the petition to

the date of realization.

17. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.417 of 2021 is partly allowed.

The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

from Rs.31,94,000/- to Rs.42,74,700/- (Rupees Forty Two

Lakh Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred Only) with

interest @ 7.5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of

petition till the date of realization. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2

are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest,