Telangana High Court
Faimeeda Begum vs G Bhanumathi on 11 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
1679 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded in the Order and Decree dated
28.03.2017 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle
Original Petition No.912 of 2015 by the learned Chairman,
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District
at LB Nagar (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 Nos.1 to 6 filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the learned
Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the
death of one Sri Mohammed Nayeemuddin (hereinafter
referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle
Accident that occurred on 01.11.2015. Petitioner No.1 is
the wife, petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are children, petitioner No.6
is the father of the deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 01.11.2015 at
05:45 AM., the deceased while proceedings towards
Kukatpally from Yerragadda on his Activa bearing No. AP
28 AX 3400 reached near Laxmikala Theater and one
Tanker bearing No. AP 37 TB 1395 which was driven in
rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the vehicle of
the deceased from backside. Due to said accident, the
deceased received grievous injuries and died on the spot.
The Police registered a criminal case against the driver of
said Tanker for the offence under Section 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code.
05. As per petitioners, the deceased was hale and
healthy and he was aged about 35 years at the time of
accident and he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by
running Zam-Zam Pan Shop at Kukatpally and he used to
contribute the same for the maintenance of his family.
06. Respondent No.1-owner and Respondent No.3-
Driver remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.
07. Respondent No.2-Insurance company filed
counter denying the negligence on the part of the driver of
the crime vehicle and the manner of occurrence of the
accident. Further contended that the deceased was also
not holding any driving license and the Insurance
Company has no liability to pay compensation and that
there is contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased. Further respondent No.2 denied the age,
avocation and income of the deceased. The compensation
claimed is out of proportions, excessive and exorbitant and
prayed to dismiss the petition.
08. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
following issues were settled:
i. Whether petitioners-claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with costs and interest
against respondent Nos.1 to 3 as prayed for?
ii. To what relief?
09. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioners got
examined petitioner No.1 as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1
to A6, eyewitness was examined as PW2 and to prove
income of the deceased, PW3 was examined. On behalf of
respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced but the
copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
10. 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 Tribunal partly allowed the Motor Vehicle
Original Petition, awarding compensation of Rs.6,82,500/-
along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of
petition till the date of deposit, to be deposited by
respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.
11. Challenging the quantum of compensation,
appellants-petitioners have filed this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation amount.
12. Heard Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel
for appellants-petitioners and Sri V. Venkatarami Reddy,
learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance company.
Perused the material available on record.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for
appellants-petitioners is that though appellants proved
their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying
on the documents under Exs.A1 to A6, the learned
Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously
awarded meager amount towards compensation by taking
monthly income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,500/-
only instead of Rs.15,000/- per month and sought for
enhancement of compensation amount.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance company has contended that
the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the
compensation and the same needs no interference by this
Court.
15. 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 28.03.2017 by the learned
Tribunal?
P O I N T:
16. This Court has perused the entire evidence and
documents available on record.
17. PW1 who is the wife of the deceased reiterated
the contents of the claim application and got marked Ex.A1
to A6 as she is not an eyewitness to the accident, she got
examined PW2-eyewitness to the accident who deposed
that he witnessed the accident while he was standing near
Laxmikala Theater, Moosapet the driver of one Tanker
bearing No. AP 37 TB 1395 driven in rash and negligent
manner and dashed the vehicle of the deceased from
backside and as a result, the deceased died on the spot.
18. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also
relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to
A6. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that a criminal case was
registered by Police and took up investigation and during
the course of investigation, inquest, postmortem
examination were conducted and those reports were
marked as Exs.A3 and A5 respectively and the Police also
collected Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report and after
completion of investigation, Ex.A2-Charge sheet was filed
against respondent No.3-driver of crime vehicle stating that
the accident took place due to his rash and negligent
driving. The copy of insurance policy was marked as
Ex.B1 and that it is valid and in force as on the date of
accident.
19. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW2-
eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary
evidence available on record, held that the accident
occurred due to negligence on the part of respondent No.3.
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.
20. Petitioners have also got examined PW3 who
deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month from his pan shop business and the said pan shop
is located in the center. There is no documentary evidence
filed to show the income of the deceased. Therefore, the
trial Court has rightly considered the income of the
deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month.
21. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal by relying on
Ex.A6-Pre University Certificate of the deceased
considered the age of the deceased as 37 years and
as there is no documentary evidence to show that
the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month,
therefore, the learned Tribunal has taken income at
the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month and after
deducting 1/4th income towards personal
expenses, ultimately the annual income of the
deceased was fixed at Rs.40,500/- per annum.
While calculating further compensation amount,
the learned Tribunal has not awarded future
prospects.
22. In Kirti and another v. Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd 1 the Honourable
Supreme Court of India held that:
"13. Third and most importantly, it is
unfair on part of the respondent-insurer to
contest grant of future prospects
considering their submission before the
High Court that such compensation ought
not to be paid pending outcome of the
National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others 2. Nevertheless, the
law on this point is no longer res integra,
and stands crystalised, as is clear from
the following extract of the aforecited
Constitutional Bench Judgment:
"59.4. In case the deceased
was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of
the established income should
be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of
40 years. An addition of 25%
where the deceased was
between the age of 40 to 50
years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age
of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary
method of computation. The
established income means the
income minus the tax
component."
Civil Appeal Nos.1920 of 2021 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.1872829 of 2018]
2017 ACJ 2700
23. In the above authority, it is made clear
by the Honourable Supreme Court of India that if
the deceased was self-employed, under the age of
40 years, an addition of 40% of established income
can be awarded. In the case on hand, the
established income of the deceased is Rs.4,500/-
per month.
24. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited supra) 40% i.e.,
Rs.1,800/- towards future prospects can duly be added
thereto, which comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- +
Rs.1,800/-). Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the
annual income of the deceased at Rs.75,600/-
(Rs.6,300x12). Since there are six dependents, after
deducting 1/4th of the income (Rs.18,900/-) towards
personal expenses of the deceased, as per the decision of
the Honourable Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another 3, the net annual
contribution to the family comes to Rs.56,700/-
(Rs.75,600/- - Rs.18,900/-).
2009 (6) SCC 121
25. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 37
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 '15'. Thus,
applying the multiplier '15' to the annual loss of
dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.56,700/-, the
total 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs.8,50,500/-
(Rs.56,700/- x 15). As seen from the Order of the learned
Tribunal, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards
funeral expenses, however, in view of Pranay Sethi's case,
the said finding is set aside. This Court is of the
considered opinion that petitioners are entitled to
Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- +
10% enhancement thereon). In addition thereof, petitioner
Nos.2 to 5 who are minor children of the deceased and
petitioner No.1 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each i.e.,
Rs.1,60,000/- 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 4. Thus, in all, petitioners are entitled to
(2018) 18 SCC 130
compensation of Rs.10,87,500/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty
Seven Thousand Five Hundred only).
26. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.6,82,500/- is at lower side
and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,87,500/-. In so far as
interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
awarded interest at the rate of 9 percent per
annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. This Court by relying upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh
and others 5 inclined to reduce the rate of interest awarded
by the learned Tribunal to 7.5 percent per annum on entire
compensation amount from the date of petition till the date
of realization. As per the Orders dated 01.07.2022 passed
by this Court after ordering I.A.No.1 of 2018 (condone
delay petition) in M.A.C.M.A.No.1679 of 2018, petitioners-
appellants are not entitled to claim interest for the delay
condoned period of 297 days. The enhanced compensation
amount along with interest, excluding the delay condoned
5 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
period of 297 days, shall be deposited by respondents
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, petitioners are
entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any
security.
27. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.6,82,500/- to Rs.10,87,500/- 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,
excluding the delay condoned period of 297 days. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 11-MAR-2024
KHRM
