Telangana High Court
Vallapureddy Mangamma vs Gade Mar Reddy on 20 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
2911 of 2017
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated
12.04.2017 (impugned Order) passed in Motor Vehicle
Original Petition No.807 of 2014 by the learned Chairman,
Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal
District Judge, Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal'),
appellants-petitioners preferred the present Appeal praying
this Court seeking enhancement of the 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:
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed a petition under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, before the learned Tribunal,
claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of
one Sri Vallapureddy Santhosh Reddy (hereinafter referred
to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident
that occurred on 13.12.2014. Petitioner No.1 is the mother
of the deceased and petitioner No.2 is the sister.
04. According to the petitioners, on 13.12.2014 the
deceased along with his relative Saketh Reddy went to
Nalgonda on personal work and while returning to
Thippalammagudem on the Motorcycle bearing No. AP 24
AQ 9638 at about 01:30 AM., early hours on 14.12.2014
when they reached outskirts of Thipparthy Village and
Mandal one Lorry bearing No. AP 24 W 2419 was stationed
by its driver on the middle of the road without any
precautions, the deceased who was proceeding on the
extreme left side of the road and due to focus lights could
not observe the stationed lorry which was parked and
dashed the said stationed lorry from its back side. Due to
said accident, the deceased and pillion rider Saketh Reddy
received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police
registered a case in Crime No.229 of 2014 for the offence
under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
05. As per the petitioners, the deceased was hale
and healthy and he was earning Rs.22,457/- per month
and he used to contribute the same for the maintenance of
his family.
06. Respondent No.1-owner filed counter denying
the averments of the claim application, occurrence of
accident, rash and negligence on the part of the lorry
driver. It is contended that there is contributory negligence
on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and that the
compensation claimed is out of proportions, excessive and
exorbitant. It is further contended that in the vehicle was
insured with respondent No.2 and total liability is on
respondent No.2 exonerating respondent No.1's liability
and sought for dismissal of petition against respondent
No.1.
07. Respondent No.2-Insurance company filed
counter denying the negligence on the part of the driver of
the crime lorry and the manner of occurrence of the
accident. Further contended that the driver of the lorry did
not possess valid and effective driving license and
therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation to petitioners on account of violation of
terms and conditions of the policy. 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 the deceased died in the motor
accident that occurred on 14.12.2014 at outskirts of
Thipparthy Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, due to
rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No. AP 24 W
2419 by its driver?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
iii. To what relief?
09. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioners got
examined petitioner No.1 as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1
to A10, eyewitnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3 and
employer of the deceased was examined as PW4. On behalf
of respondent No.1, no oral or documentary evidence was
adduced. On behalf of respondent No.2, the Divisional
Manager was examined as RW1 and the copy of insurance
policy was marked as Ex.B1.
10. Considering the claim of petitioners and
counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.1 and 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.12,05,000/- along with interest @ 7 % per annum from
the date of petition till the date of award and subsequent
interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of award till the
date of realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 &
2 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 Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopireddy,
learned counsel for appellants-petitioners and Sri
S.Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. 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 A10, the learned
Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously
awarded meager amount towards compensation by not
awarding the future prospects 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 12.04.2017 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 mother of the deceased
reiterated the contents of the claim application and got
marked Ex.A1 to A8 as she is not an eyewitness to the
accident, hence got examined PW2 and PW3 who are
eyewitnesses to the accident, deposed that they witnessed
the accident. PW2 witnessed the accident while he was
proceeding to his agricultural fields at outskirts of
Thippalammagudem and PW3 witnessed the accident while
he was proceedings to Thipparthy village in his auto. Both
these witnesses, categorically deposed that the deceased
and one Saketh Reddy were proceeding on the Motorcycle
bearing No.AP 24 AQ 9638 at about 01:30 AM., early hours
on 14.12.2014 when they reached outskirts of Thipparthy
Village and Mandal one Lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 2419
was stationed by its driver negligently on the middle of the
road without any precautions and the deceased who was
proceeding on the extreme left side of the road and due to
focus lights the deceased could not observe the stationed
lorry which was parked due to which he dashed the said
stationed lorry from its back side and sustained grievous
injuries resulting his instantaneous death. Even though
PW1 to PW3 were cross-examined at length, nothing could
be elicited from their cross-examination to disbelieve their
evidence.
18. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also
relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to
A8. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that a case in Crime No.229 of
2014 was registered by Police, Thipparthy and took up
investigation and during the course of investigation,
inquest, postmortem examination and scene of offence
panchanama was conducted and those reports were
marked as Exs.A2 to A4 respectively and after completion
of investigation, Ex.A6-Charge sheet was filed against the
driver of the lorry stating that the accident took place due
to his negligence on the part of lorry driver for parking
the lorry without taking any precautions. Ex.A2-Inquest
report shows that the deceased died in a road traffic
accident. Ex.A3-Postmortem examination report shows the
injuries suffered by the deceased and the cause of death
was due to 'head injury'. Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector
Report shows that there are no mechanical defects in the
lorry. Ex.A7-Work assignment of Team Lease Service Pvt.,
Ltd., Ex.A8-Driving license of the deceased shows that the
deceased was having valid and effective driving license.
Ex.A9-Appointment letter of the deceased and Ex.A10-Pay
slip of the deceased for the month of November, 2014.
19. RW1-Divisional Manager of respondent No.2-
Insurance company deposed that the lorry was insured
with their insurance company and the copy of insurance
policy was marked as Ex.B1 and that it is valid and in
force as on the date of accident and further deposed that
there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.
20. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW2 and PW3
who are eyewitnesses to the accident, coupled with the
documentary evidence available on record, held that the
accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the
driver of lorry. 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.
21. Petitioners have also got examined PW4-
Employer of the deceased who deposed that the deceased
was employed with them as Field Assistant and that he
was under their employment till his death. He further
deposed that there would be raise in his salary on
performance basis, to an extent of 15% to 20% on the gross
salary. He issued Ex.A7-Work assignment of Team Lease
Service Pvt., Ltd., Ex.A9-Appointment letter of the deceased
dated 12.06.2014 shows that he was appointed as Field
Assistant with Employee No.731928 and Ex.A10-Pay slip of
the deceased for the month of November, 2014 shows that
his earnings were Rs.11,347/- and his deductions were
Rs.1,258/- and his net salary was Rs.10,089/-. During
the course of cross-examination, nothing elicited to
disbelieve his evidence.
22. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the
age of the deceased as 23 years and as he worked
as Field Assistant, has taken income at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per month and ultimately the annual
income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.60,000/-
per annum. While calculating further
compensation amount, the learned Tribunal has
not awarded future prospects on the ground that
the deceased was terminated from job before his
demise under Ex.A7.
23. It is pertinent to state here that the
deceased worked as Field Assistant during this
lifetime but terminated later on vide Ex.A7. As
seen from Ex.A7-Letter dated 28.03.2014 it
discloses that the deceased was terminated from
employment due to the expiry of the work
assignment and subsequent project closure.
Therefore, it is clear that termination of the
deceased was due to the expiry of the work
assignment and subsequent project closure but
not due to any fault on the part of the deceased in
employment. As stated supra, the deceased was
aged about 23 years at the time of accident and he
worked as Field Assistant in Team Lease Service
Private Limited. It is evident from record that the deceased
was given experience certificate also. An educated person
with experience in previous job, is not expected to sit idle
without doing any work. Therefore, muchless he can be
treated as 'self-employed' for the purpose of awarding
future prospects, in a case filed under beneficial legislation.
24. 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.
Civil Appeal Nos.1920 of 2021 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) Nos.1872829 of 2018]
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."
25. 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.10,000/-
per month.
2017 ACJ 2700
26. In view of the decision of the Honourable Apex
Court in Pranay Sethi case (cited supra) 40% i.e.,
Rs.4,000/- towards future prospects can duly be added
thereto, which comes to Rs.14,000/- (Rs.10,000/- +
Rs.4,000/-). Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the
annual income of the deceased at Rs.1,68,000/-
(Rs.14,000x12). Since the deceased was a bachelor,
after deducting half of the income (Rs.84,000/-) 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.84,000/-
(Rs.1,68,000/- - Rs.84,000/-).
27. As seen from the evidence, the deceased was 23
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 '18'. Thus,
applying the multiplier '18' to the annual loss of
dependency, which is already arrived at Rs.84,000/-, the
total loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,12,000/-
2009 (6) SCC 121
(Rs.84,000/- x 18). 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,
this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners are
entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the conventional heads
(Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Thus, in all,
petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,45,000/-.
28. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.12,05,000/- is at lower side
and the same is increased to Rs.15,45,000/-. In so far as
interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
awarded interest at the rate of 7 percent per
annum from the date of petition till the date of
award and subsequent interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum from the date of award till the
date of realization. This Court by relying upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.
Rajbir Singh and others 4 inclined to enhance the rate of
interest awarded by the learned Tribunal to 7.5 percent per
4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
annum on entire compensation amount from the date of
petition till the date of realization. The enhanced
compensation amount along with interest 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.
29. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.12,05,000/- to Rs.15,45,000/- 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.
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: 20-MAR-2024
KHRM
