Telangana High Court
Basireddy Sangeetha And 4 Others vs Krishna Kumar And Another on 14 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
No.1489 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the
Order and Decree dated 13.09.2017 (impugned Order) passed in
Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.454 of 2014 by the learned
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge
at Nalgonda, (for short "the learned Tribunal"), appellants-petitioners
preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation
amount.
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as per their array before the learned Tribunal.
03. Brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioners, who are the wife, children and parents of the
deceased Basireddy Malla Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased') have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased in a motor
vehicle accident. As per the petitioners, on 04.06.2014, the deceased
as rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP-24/AK/6558 along with his
relative Goverdhan Reddy as pillion rider were returning to their
village Choudampally at normal speed by following the traffic rules. In
the mid way, when they reached APSP Battalion located in the
outskirts of Anneparthy of Addanki-Narkepally Highway, in the
meantime, at about 9.45pm, one container lorry (truck) bearing
No.HR-38-Q-8502 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
at high speed came from back side of their motorcycle and hit their
motorcycle. Due to the said accident, both the deceased and pillion
rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and
died on the spot. Based on a complaint, the police, Nalgonda
registered a case in Crime No.151 of 2014 and laid charge sheet
under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the lorry i.e.
respondent No.1. It is further contended that the deceased was aged
35 years and hale and healthy at the time of accident. Being an
agriculturist, he was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month
and used to contribute the same for the maintenance and welfare of
the petitioners, who completely depended on him. On account of the
untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners have lost their source
of income. Hence, they have claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-
from the respondents as the deceased died due to the negligent
driving of driver of lorry.
04. Respondent No.1-owner of the lorry remained exparte before
the learned Tribunal.
05. Respondent No.2-Insurance company filed counter denying
the averments of the claim petition, age, avocation, income and
manner of the accident. It is further contended that the deceased was
not wearing helmet at the time of accident and there was contributory
negligence of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of
the offending lorry do not have driving license and there was violation
of policy conditions and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
06. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were
settled:
i. Whether the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
container lorry (truck) bearing No.HR-38-Q-8502?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
iii. Whether the age, occupation and income claimed by the
petitioners are true?
iv. To what relief?
07. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3
were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of
respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy
of Insurance policy was marked with consent.
08. Considering the claim of petitioners and counter affidavit filed
by respondent No.2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the
claim petition, awarding compensation of Rs.8,45,000/- along with
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
award and also subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
award till the date of realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1
and 2 jointly and severally.
09. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, appellants-
petitioners have filed this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
10. Heard Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for
appellants-petitioners and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance company. Perused the material available
on record.
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants-
claimants is that though the claimants have proved the case by
adducing cogent and convincing evidence apart from relying on the
documents under Exs.A1 to A8, the learned Tribunal without
considering the same has taken into consideration the income of the
deceased at Rs.6,000/-. Further, the learned Tribunal has
erroneously deducted 1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses
instead of 1/4th of the income and also the appropriate multiplier to
the age of the deceased is '16' and not '15'. Therefore, the appellants
prayed to award just and reasonable compensation.
12. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the Insurance
company argued that the learned Tribunal after considering all the
aspects has awarded reasonable compensation, for which,
interference of this Court is unwarranted.
13. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether appellants-petitioners are entitled for enhancement of
compensation amount in addition to the compensation amount
granted vide impugned Order and Decree dated 13.09.2017 by
the learned Tribunal?
P O I N T:
14. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
available on record.
15. PW1 who is the wife of the deceased in her chief examination
reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the
manner of accident and death of deceased in the said accident. In
support of their case, the claimants have got examined PWs 2 and 3.
PW2, who was an eye witness to the accident in his chief examination
deposed that he along with three others were proceeding on two
motorcycles along with the deceased who was rider another
motorcycle. He further deposed about the manner of accident, which
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
offending lorry and death of deceased in the said accident. PW3, who
is the mother of deceased in her chief examination deposed that her
son used to do agriculture by cultivate his agricultural land and was
earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. Though PWs 1 to 3
were cross examined at length, nothing worth was elicited to dis-
believe their evidence.
16. Apart from oral evidence, claimants have also relied upon
documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1-FIR
discloses that based on a complaint, the Police, Nalgonda Rural have
registered a case in Crime No.151 of 2014 under Section 304-A of IPC
and took up investigation and laid charge sheet under Ex.A5 against
the driver of the lorry. Ex.A2-Inquest report discloses that the
deceased is an agriculturist and died in the road traffic accident.
Ex.A3-Postmortem Examination Report discloses that the deceased
died in a road traffic accident. Ex.A6 is the driving license of the
deceased. Ex.A7 and A8-Pattedar pass books disclose that certain
agricultural lands stand in the name of the deceased. The copy of
insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 and the said policy was valid
and in force as on the date of accident. There is no dispute regarding
the manner of accident and death of the deceased. Therefore, the
learned Tribunal answered issue No.1 in favour of the claim
petitioners holding that the accident has occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of lorry.
17. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said
findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence
in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is
with regard to the quantum of compensation.
18. Now, coming to the compensation amount, as per the claim
petitioners, the deceased was getting an income of Rs.15,000/- per
month. Admittedly, there is no income proof filed by the claim
petitioners. Considering Exs.A7 and A8 filed by the petitioners that
the deceased was an agriculturist, the learned Tribunal has rightly
taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and
awarded the compensation and this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said finding.
19. The learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.1,00,000/- under
the head of loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer the Judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi & others 1 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court had fixed
reasonable figures on conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and
Rs. 15,000/- respectively. In all, it comes to Rs.70,000/- (which shall
carry 10% enhancement for every three years). This Court, by relying
upon the said decision, reduces the amount awarded under non-
pecuniary heads from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.70,000/- (which carries
10% enhancement for every three years).
20. While calculating the loss of source of dependency,
the learned Tribunal has not taken the future prospects. As
the deceased was self-employed and aged below 40 years, 40% future
prospects have to be taken into consideration, in view of the decision
of the Honourable Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited supra)
40% i.e., Rs.2,400/- towards future prospects can duly be added to
the income of the deceased, which comes to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- +
Rs.2,400/-). Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the annual income of
the deceased at Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.8,400x12). Since there are five
dependents, after deducting 1/4th of the income (Rs.25,200/-)
towards personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of the
Honourable Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
(2017 ACJ 2700)
Corporation 2, the net annual contribution to the family comes to
Rs.75,600/- (Rs.1,00,800/- minus Rs.25,200/-).
21. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 35 years at the
time of fatal accident. Therefore, as per the decision of the
Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma (supra), the
appropriate multiplier is '16'. Thus, applying the multiplier '16' to the
annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.75,600/-,
the total 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.75,600/- x
16). That apart, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of
Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads and further, considering the
fact that appellant Nos.2 and 3, being the minor children of
deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.40,000/- to
each of them i.e. total Rs.80,000/- under the head of parental
consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General
Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and
others 3. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of
Rs.13,66,600/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Six
Hundred only).
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal at
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
(2018) 18 SCC 130
Rs.8,45,000/- is at lower side and the same is enhanced to
Rs.13,66,600/-.
23. Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, the claimants are
entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization, as per the
decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh
and others 4.
24. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.8,45,000/- to Rs.13,66,600/- along with interest at
the rate of 7.5 percent per annum on entire compensation amount
from the date of petition till the date of realization. Time to deposit the
compensation is one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. 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.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 14-JUNE-2024
gvl
4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
