Telangana High Court

Diviti Saraswathi vs E. Prashanth Reddy on 4 November, 2024

          HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1882 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge),

Nizamabad in O.P.No.299 of 2014, dated 22.07.2016, the claim

petitioners therein preferred the present Appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation.

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

referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are

the wife and son of the deceased- Diviti Anjaiah, filed claim petition

under Section 166 (1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking

compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- on account of the death of the

deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.02.2014.

It is stated by the petitioners that on 09.02.2014, when the

deceased was going on his Motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-AF-6414

from Nizamabad to Bodhan and at about 4.00 p.m., when he

reached the limits of Sarangapoor, one Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-

4859 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner at a high speed came in the opposite direction and dashed

the deceased due to which he sustained fatal injuries and died on

MGP,J

the spot. Based on information, Police of Nizamabad Police Station

registered a case in Crime No.59 of 2014 under Section 304-A IPC

against the driver of Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859. It is stated by

the petitioners that prior to accident, the deceased was hale and

healthy, aged 49 years and used to earn Rs.60,000/- per month by

working as Assistant Sub-Inspector and Rs.1,00,000/- from

Agriculture. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the

petitioners lost their source of income and hence, filed claim

petition seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- along with costs

and interest against the respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner

and insurer of the crime Santro Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859.

4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the Car bearing No.AP-

28-BF-4859, filed his written statement denying the averments

made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of subject

car is holding valid driving license at the time of accident and that

the subject Car was insured with 2nd respondent and the policy

was in force as on the date of accident, hence, the 2nd respondent

alone is liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the

claim against it.

5. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its written

statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and

contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

MGP,J

driving of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-AF-6414, as such, the

owner and insurer of the said motor cycle are necessary parties

and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of

necessary parties and that the compensation claimed is excess and

exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the

learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether on 09.02.2014 at about 4.00 p.m. in the limits of Sarangapoor village, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859 by its driver?

(ii) Whether Diviti Anjaiah received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of respondent?

(iv) To what relief?

7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs1

to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.X1 to X3 were

marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company, RWs 1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were

marked.

8. After considering the evidence and documents filed by

both sides, the learned Tribunal had awarded compensation of

Rs.39,92,842/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the

MGP,J

date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the

respondents jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with

the said compensation, the claim petitioners preferred the

present Appeal seeking for enhancement of the same.

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance

Company.

10. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellants are

that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly

income of the deceased @ Rs.34,542/- instead of Rs.27,868/- and

ought to have considered revision of pay as Rs.43,680/- as per

Ex.X1; ought to have considered the additional income from

Agriculture; ought to have considered higher amounts under the

head of loss of care, protection and guidance to the 2nd petitioner;

ought to have considered more interest on the compensation

amount and hence prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the

compensation.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company contended that the learned

Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded

reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is

unwarranted.

MGP,J

12. Now the point that arises for determination is,

Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?

POINT:-

13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents

available on record. Petitioner No.1, who is the wife of the

deceased, was examined herself as PW1. As she is not an eye

witness to the incident, she got examined PW2, who is an eye

witness to the accident and also got examined PW3 on her behalf

and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.X1 to X3 on their behalf.

On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 & 2 were examined and

Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

14. PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident, deposed in his

evidence that on 09.02.2016, when he along with Dandu Ashok

were going on their motorcycle to Bodhan, the deceased- Diviti

Anjaiah, who was going on his motorcycle, was ahead of them and

when he reached the limits of Sarangapoor at 4.00p.m., one Car

bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859 which was driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed

the motorcycle of the deceased due to which, he sustained fatal

injuries and died on the spot.

15. Further, a perusal of charge sheet under Ex.A2 shows that

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

MGP,J

driver of Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859 and Ex.A3-Inquest report

also shows that the deceased died due to grievous Head injury.

Ex.A4-Post mortem examination report discloses that the cause of

death was due to "Hypovolumic shock & intracentral Hemorrhage

due to RTA injures". Ex.A5 is the Crime Details Form. Further,

Ex.A6- Report of Motor Vehicle Inspector shows that the

occurrence of accident was not due to any mechanical defect.

Therefore, from the evidence of PW2 coupled with the documents

marked under Exs.A1 to A6, it is clear that the death of the

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

crime Car bearing No.AP-28-BF-4859. This Court do not find any

reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal.

16. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned

Tribunal, taking into consideration the net salary of the deceased,

fixed the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.27,868/- and

calculated compensation which arrived @ Rs.39,92,842/-. This

Court, taking into consideration the Pay Certificate issued for the

month of January 2014 by the Administrative Officer of District

Police Office, Nizamabad, showing the take home salary of the

deceased as Rs.34,542/- (which includes deduction of Professional

Tax) under Ex.A7 and also considering Ex.X2-Form 16 issued

towards deduction of Income Tax of the deceased which is @

MGP,J

Rs.8608/- per annum, is inclined to fix the monthly income of the

deceased @ Rs.33,825/- (after deduction of Income Tax). Since the

age of the deceased was 49 years at the time of accident, if 30% is

added towards future prospects to the established income of the

deceased as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others 1, then the net future monthly income comes to Rs.43,972/-

.Since the number of dependants are two, if 1/3rd amount is

deducted towards the personal and living expenses, then the net

monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.29,315/- and the

annual income comes to Rs.3,51,780/- and after applying

multiplier '13' for the deceased being aged 49 years, then the total

loss of dependency as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex

Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2comes to

Rs.45,73,140/-. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal had

awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and

Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of care and protection and

guidance to 2nd petitioner. So far as the amounts awarded under

funeral expenses and loss of consortium are concerned, this Court

considers that the said amounts are on higher side and which

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP,J

needs interference. Hence, this Court, by relying upon the

Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 2700),

is inclined to award a sum of Rs.77,000/- towards conventional

heads i.e. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

However, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head of loss of care and

protection and guidance to 2nd petitioner. Thus in all, the

appellants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.47,50,140/-

which is calculated as under:-

 Sl.No.   Name      of   the    By         the   By this Court
          Head         under    Tribunal
          which
          compensation
          awarded
 1        Compensation          Rs.37,67,842     Rs.45,73,140/
          under the head of
          loss             of
          dependency
 2.       Compensation          Rs.1,25,000/-    Rs.77,000/-
          awarded      under
          conventional
          heads
 3.       Loss     of   care,   Rs.1,00,000/-           -
          protection     and
          guidance to the
          2nd petitioner

                   TOTAL                         Rs.47,50,140/-

17. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned,

this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

MGP,J

Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3, enhances the rate

of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal from 6% per annum to

7.5% per annum.

18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1882 of 2019 is partly-allowed

by enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal

from Rs.39,92,842/- to Rs.47,50,140/- and which shall carry interest

at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization

payable by both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of