Telangana High Court
Challa Parvathamma vs Mr. Kalikivai Suresh on 7 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
1927 of 2019
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated
02.08.2016 in Original Petition No.720 of 2012 (for short
'impugned Order') passed by the learned Chairman, Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional
District Judge, Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal'),
appellants-claim petitioners preferred the present Appeal
praying this Court 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:
Claim Petitioners filed a petition under Section 166
read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short
'the Act') before the learned Tribunal claiming
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of one Sri
Challa Muralikrishna (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident that
occurred on 09.06.2012. Petitioner No.1 is the mother and
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are sisters of the deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 09.06.2012 while
the deceased along with his friend Md.Hafeez was
returning from Mandal Revenue Office, Madugula Village,
towards Hyderabad on his Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No.
AP 22 AE 3766 when they reached the outskirts of
Ramnagar, Mysamma Temple on Sagar-Hyderabad
Highway, one Car bearing No. AP 29 BG 4505 (for short
'crime vehicle') came from Hyderabad side in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed to their
motorcycle, due to impact of accident, the deceased
sustained multiple injuries and died at about 04:50 PM.,
while undergoing treatment at NIMS Hospital. The Police,
Chinthapalli registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2012
against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under
Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short referred
as 'IPC').
05. As per petitioners, the deceased was hale and
healthy and he was the only bread-winner of their family.
He used to work as Computer Operator in Tahasildar
Office, Madgula and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month
and he used to contribute the same for the welfare of the
family. Respondent No.1 being owner and respondents
No.2 being Insurance company of the crime vehicle, are
liable to pay compensation to petitioners.
06. Respondent No.1 remained exparte before the
learned Tribunal. Whereas respondent No.2-Insurance
company filed counter denying the averments of the claim
application, occurrence of accident, rash and negligence on
the part of the driver of crime vehicle. Further contended
that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid
and effective driving license. The compensation claimed is
out of proportions, excessive and exorbitant and prayed to
dismiss the petition.
07. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioners got
examined petitioner No.1 as PW1, PW2-eyewitness and
PW3-Employer of the deceased and got marked Exs.A1 to
A6 and X1. On behalf of respondent-Insurance company,
RW1-Official of Insurance company and Exs.B1 to B5 were
marked.
08. Considering the claim of petitioners and
counter affidavit filed by respondent-Insurance company
and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the Motor
Vehicle Original Petition, awarding compensation of
Rs.6,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, by
fixing liability to respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally.
09. Challenging the quantum of compensation,
appellants-petitioners have filed this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation amount.
10. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel
for appellants-petitioners and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy,
learned counsel for Insurance company-respondent.
Perused the material available on record.
11. The contention of learned counsel for
appellants-claim petitioners is that though appellants
proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from
relying on the documents under Exs.A1 to A6 and X1, the
learned Tribunal without considering the same,
erroneously awarded meager amount towards
compensation by not awarding the future prospects,
medical expenses and other conventional heads.
Therefore, he sought for enhancement of compensation
amount.
12. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel
for Insurance company has contended that the learned
Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the
same needs no interference by this Court.
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 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 mother of the deceased
reiterated the contents of the claim application and got
marked Exs.A1 to A6 and X1 as she was not an eyewitness
to the accident, hence got examined PW2 who is eyewitness
to the accident, deposed on 09.06.2012 the deceased along
with his friend Md.Hafeez were returning from Mandal
Revenue Office, Madugula Village towards Hyderabad on
Pulsar Motorcycle bearing No. AP 22 AE 3766 and reached
the outskirts of Ramnagar, Mysamma Temple on Sagar-
Hyderabad Highway, in the meanwhile, crime vehicle came
from Hyderabad side in a rash and negligent manner with
high speed and dashed to their motorcycle, due to impact
of accident, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and
subsequently, he came to know that the deceased
succumbed to injuries on the same day. Even though PW1
and PW2 were cross-examined, nothing could be elicited
from their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence.
16. PW3-Deputy Tahsildar, Madgul deposed that
the deceased was working as Private Computer Operator in
their office since February, 2011 and his monthly salary
was Rs.10,000/- per month vide Ex.A6-Salary Certificate.
During the course of cross-examination, PW3 admitted
that he did not produce any record showing that the
deceased was employed in their office.
17. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also
relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to
A6 and X1. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police,
Chinthapalli registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2012
against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under
Section 304-A of IPC and took up investigation and during
the course of investigation, postmortem examination and
inquest were conducted over the dead body of the deceased
and those reports were marked as Exs.A3 and A4
respectively and after completion of investigation, Ex.A2-
Charge sheet was filed against the driver of the crime
vehicle stating that the accident took place due to
negligence on the part of crime vehicle. Ex.A5-Motor
Vehicle Inspector Report shows that there are no
mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Ex.A6-Salary
certificate of the deceased and Ex.X1-authorization letter.
18. RW1 is the official of insurance company
reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit and it is
admitted that Ex.B1-policy was in force as on the date of
accident.
19. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW1 and
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 the
driver of crime vehicle. Therefore, the said findings of the
learned Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence in
proper perspective, for which this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the same. Thus, the only dispute in the
present Appeal is with regard to the quantum of
compensation.
20. 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 used to
do private job as Computer Operator, has taken income
at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. In order to
prove the employment of the deceased, PW3-
Deputy Tahsildar was examined and he confirmed
Ex.A6-Salary Certificate of the deceased wherein
the salary of the deceased was shown as
Rs.10,000/-. Here it is undisputed fact that the
deceased was working as Computer Operator,
which is a skilled job. Hence, the monthly income
taken by the learned Tribunal appears to be at
lower side. Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix
her monthly income at Rs.8,000/-. In view of the
decision of the Honourable Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others 1 40% i.e., Rs.3,200/- towards future prospects can
duly be added thereto, which comes to Rs.11,200/-
(Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-). Hence, this Court is
inclined to fix the annual income of the deceased at
Rs.1,34,400/- (Rs.11,200x12). Since the deceased
was bachelor, after deducting half of the income
1 2017 ACJ 2700
(Rs.67,200/-) 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 2, the net annual contribution to the family comes
to Rs.67,200/- (Rs.1,34,400/- - Rs.67,200/-).
21. The learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that
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 (cited supra), the appropriate
multiplier is '18'. Thus, applying the multiplier '18' to the
annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at
Rs.67,200/-, the total loss of dependency comes to
Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.67,200/- x 18). In addition to that,
petitioners are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under the
conventional heads (Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement
thereon) as per decision of Honourable Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi's case (cited supra). Thus, in all, petitioners
are entitled to compensation of Rs.12,42,600/-.
2 2009 (6) SCC 121
22. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.6,88,000/- is
enhanced to Rs.12,42,600/-. In so far as interest aspect is
concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded
interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum from
the date of petition till the date of deposit, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the said
finding. The enhanced compensation also shall carry
interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum.
23. Accordingly, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal
from Rs.6,88,000/- to Rs.12,42,600/- 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.
The entire compensation amount along with costs and
interest shall be deposited by respondents within a period
of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit, petitioners-appellants are
entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any
security. 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: 07-NOV-2024
KHRM
