Telangana High Court

M Amrutha, Ranga Reddy Dist And 2 Others vs Mohd Iqbal, Ranga Reddy Dist And Anr on 19 November, 2024

          HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3060 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the decree and order dated 30.12.2015 passed

in O.P.No.1680 of 2012 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -

cum - The Court of XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (hereinafter be referred as 'the Tribunal'), the claim

petitioners in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking for

grant of compensation.

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

referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

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

are the parents and brother of the deceased-M.Sharada filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989, against the respondents claiming

compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a

motor vehicle accident that took place on 01.05.2012. It is stated

by the petitioners that on 01.05.2012, the deceased, after

completion of her duty at Venkateshwara Nursing Home,

Gandimaisamma, boarded an Auto in order to go to Suraram

Village and on the way, at about 20.00p.m., when the Auto reached

near Sriramnagar Colony, opposite to Petrol Pump, at that time,

Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-1097 driven by its driver in a rash and

MGP,J

negligent manner with high speed, dashed the Auto in which the

deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased sustained

grievous Head injury, fracture of both legs and other injuries all

over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Narayana

Hrudayalaya Hospitals for treatment and subsequently on

16.05.2012, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for

treatment and while undergoing treatment, the deceased was

succumbed to injuries on 19.05.2012. Police of Dundigal Police

Station registered a case in Crime No.246 of 2012 under Sections

304A and 337 of IPC against the driver of the offending Auto

bearing No.AP-28TC-1097. It is stated by the petitioners that the

deceased was aged 21 years and was hale and healthy and used to

earn Rs.9,000/- per month by working as ANM Nurse in

Venkateshwara Nursing Home, Gandimaisamma and used to

contribute the same for maintenance of her family. Due to

untimely and accidental death of the deceased, the claimants, who

are the parents and younger brother have lost their bread winner

and were put to mental shock, agony and irreparable loss which

cannot be compensated in any manner. Thus, filed a claim

petition seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the

respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime

Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-1097.

MGP,J

4. Respondent No.1-Owner of the crime Auto, remained

ex-parte. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the material allegations made in the claim petition and

contended that as per Section 158(6) of M.V.Act, it is the

mandatory duty of the concerned Police to forward all the relevant

documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date

of information. But the same was not done and did not comply the

statutory demand. They also contended that as per Section 134(c)

of M.V.Act, it is the mandatory duty of the 1st respondent as well as

the petitioners to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time, place

of accident, Driving license particulars and etc. Since the 1st

respondent had failed to comply the statutory demand, the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the

petitioners and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is

further contended that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed

on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and

insurer of the Auto in which the deceased travelled and that the

compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed

to dismiss the claim against it.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had

framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-

MGP,J

28TC- 1097 causing death of the deceased-

M.Sharada?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3

were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the

2nd respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were

marked.

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on

both sides, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed

by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the claim petitioners

filed the present Appeal seeking for grant of compensation.

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/claim petitioners

as well as the learned Standing counsel for Respondent

No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for Appellants is that

though the petitioners have proved their case by adducing cogent

and convincing evidence, but the learned Tribunal failed to

consider the same and hence, prayed to allow the Appeal by

awarding reasonable compensation.

MGP,J

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal,

after considering all the aspects, had rightly dismissed the claim

petition of the petitioners and interference of this Court is

unwarranted.

11. Now the points that emerge for determination are,

(i) Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of compensation?

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

POINTS:

12. This Court has perused the evidence and documents

available on record. Petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and

reiterated the contents made in the claim petition. As she is not an

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

who filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination narrating the

contents made in the claim petition. During his cross-examination

by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, he deposed that

himself, deceased and another person were travelling in the Auto

involved in the accident and he do not remember the Auto bearing

number. Coming to the documents marked on behalf of the

petitioners, a perusal of Ex.A1-FIR shows that Police of Dundigal

Police Station registered a case in Crime No.246 of 2012 under

Section 304A, conducted investigation and laid charge sheet under

MGP,J

Ex.A4 against the driver of the crime Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-

1097. The contents of the charge sheet disclose that on 01.05.2012

at about 20,00 hours, the deceased boarded a sharing Auto at

Gandimaisamma cross roads to go to Suraram village and on the

way when the auto reached Sriramnagar colony, near new Petrol

Pump, the driver of crime Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-1097 drove the

vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Auto

bearing No.AP-28TC-2150 which was coming in opposite direction

in which the deceased was travelling. As a result, the deceased

sustained Head injury and fracture injury to her two legs and was

immediately shifted to Narayana Hrudalaya Hospitals and later

shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and on 19.05.2012,

while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries.

Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector report shows that the accident had

not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. Ex.A6

is the Salary certificate of the deceased issued by Venkateshwara

Nursing Home, Hyderabad.

13. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with the

documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A4, it is clearly

evident that an accident had occurred on 01.05.2012 and the

deceased had suffered multiple injuries all over the body and at

last, while undergoing treatment, she succumbed to injuries.

Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation on

MGP,J

account of the death of the deceased. This Court is inclined to

interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal and

hereby award compensation as under:-

14. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased used to earn

Rs.9000/-per month by working as Nurse in Venkateshwara

Nursing Home, Gandimaisamma. A perusal of Ex.A5-Salary

Certificate issued by Venkateshwara Nursing Home discloses that

the deceased used to receive an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards her

salary. Since the age of the deceased is 21 years, if 40% is added

towards her future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Co.Ltd.

v.Pranay Sethi 1, then the income of the deceased comes to

Rs.12,600/-. As the number of dependents are 3, if 1/3rdis

deducted towards her living and personal expenses, then the net

monthly income comes to Rs.8,400/- and the annual income

comes to Rs.1,00,800/-. After applying the multiplier '18' as the

deceased being aged 21 years, then the total loss of dependency

would arrive at Rs.18,14,400/- Apart from this, the petitioners are

also entitled for an amount of Rs.77,000/- towards conventional

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

as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi & others (2017

2017(6) 170 SC

MGP,J

ACJ 2700). Hence, the petitioners are awarded with a total

compensation of Rs.18,91,400/-.

15. Insofar as awarding of interest is concerned, this Court, by

relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and

others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2 hereby award interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the

learned Tribunal and hereby award compensation of

Rs.18,91,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to the

petitioners/appellants.

16. It is settled principle of law that the appellants are entitled

for just and reasonable compensation as adjudged by the Court in

the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh and others 3

wherein it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that

"...under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. Only embargo is it should be 2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

AIR 2003 SC 674

MGP,J

'Just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence.

17. With the above finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is

clear that the compensation can be granted more than the claim

made based on cogent and convincing evidence.

18. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the

settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this

Court deems fit and proper to allow the Appeal by setting aside the

order of the learned Tribunal.

19. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by awarding

compensation of Rs. Rs.18,91,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per