Telangana High Court
Yasa Swathi,Mounika And 2 Others vs Marri Madhuri And Another on 18 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.
1284 of 2018
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded vide Order and Decree dated
02.11.2017 in Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.776 of
2014 (for short 'impugned Order') passed by the learned
Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short hereinafter
referred as 'the Tribunal'), appellants-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 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Rules 455 of the Andhra
Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 before the learned
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the
death of one Sri Yasa Manoranjan Reddy (hereinafter
referred to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle
Accident that occurred on 05.08.2011. Petitioner No.1 is
the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are parents of the
deceased.
04. According to petitioners, on 05.08.2011 while
the deceased along with his relative Thangella Srinivas
Reddy were proceeding towards Hyderabad from
Peddavoora Village on his Motorcycle bearing No. AP 24 D
3542 when they reached near Oikonomas School,
Yacharam Village on Sagar road, one Maruthi Swift Car
bearing No. AP 29 BW 6566 (for short hereinafter referred
as 'crime vehicle') came in a rash and negligent manner
with high speed and dashed to their motorcycle from
backside, due to impact of accident, the deceased
sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot and while
undergoing treatment the said Thangella Srinivas Reddy
also died. The Police, Yacharam registered a case in Crime
No.187 of 2014 against the driver of the crime vehicle for
the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 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 Private Employee and used to earn
Rs.12,000/- 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 PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On
behalf of respondent-Insurance company, RW1-Official of
Insurance company and Exs.B1 to B3 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.8,93,000/- with 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, by
fixing liability on 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 Smt.Annapurna Sreeram, 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 A5, the learned
Tribunal without considering the same, erroneously
awarded meager amount towards compensation by not
awarding the future prospects 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 wife of the deceased reiterated
the contents of the claim application and got marked
Exs.A1 to A5 as she was not an eyewitness to the accident,
hence got examined PW2 who is eyewitness to the accident,
deposed that he witnessed the accident while he was
returning home from Yacharam and categorically deposed
about the manner of the accident. Even though PW1 and
PW2 were cross-examined, nothing could be elicited from
their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence.
16. 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.
17. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also
relied upon documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to
A5. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that the Police, Yacharam
registered a case in Crime No.187 of 2014 against the
driver of the crime vehicle for the offences under Sections
304-A and 337 of IPC and took up investigation and during
the course of investigation, inquest and postmortem
examination were conducted over the dead body of the
deceased and those reports were marked as Exs.A2 and A3
respectively and after completion of investigation, Ex.A5-
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.A4-Motor
Vehicle Inspector Report shows that there are no
mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Ex.B1 is the copy
of the insurance policy which was in force as on the date of
accident.
18. 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.
19. In so far as the quantum of compensation
is concerned, the learned Tribunal considering the
age of the deceased as 32 years and as he used to
do private job, has taken income at the rate of
Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the said finding of the
learned Tribunal, which appears to be reasonable.
As seen from the impugned Order, the learned
Tribunal failed to grant future prospects. 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.2,400/- towards future prospects can
duly be added thereto, 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 three
dependents, after deducting 1/3rd of the income
(Rs.33,600/-) towards personal expenses of the deceased,
as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in
Smt.Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
1 2017 ACJ 2700
another 2, the net annual contribution to the family comes
to Rs.67,200/- (Rs.1,00,800/- - Rs.67,200/-).
20. The learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that
the deceased was 32 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 '16'. Thus, applying the multiplier '16' to the
annual loss of dependency, which is already arrived at
Rs.67,200/-, the total loss of dependency comes to
Rs.10,75,200/- (Rs.67,200/- x 16). In addition to that,
petitioners are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the
conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 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.11,52,200/-.
21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the compensation amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal at Rs.8,93,000/- is
enhanced to Rs.11,52,200/-. In so far as interest aspect is
2 2009 (6) SCC 121
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. This Court by
relying upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in
Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3 inclined
to enhance 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 deposit.
The entire compensation amount along with enhanced
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 are entitled to
withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
22. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal
from Rs.8,93,000/- to Rs.11,52,200/-. There shall be no
order as to costs.
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 18-NOV-2024
KHRM
