Telangana High Court
Smt. Amribai And Another vs Akheel Ahmed And Anothger on 27 February, 2025
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1983 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - Principal District Judge,
Medak at Sangareddy (for short, the Tribunal), in O.P.No.58 of
2009, dated 26.07.2010, the claim petitioners in the said O.P
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 parents of Late Rathod Gopal (hereinafter be referred as 'the
deceased') filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of
the death of their deceased son-Rathod Gopal in a motor vehicle
accident that took place on 08.11.2008. It is stated by the
petitioners that on 08.11.2008 at about 10.00 P.M., when the
deceased was proceeding towards Dilsukhnagar, in the meantime,
one Lorry Bearing No.MH-04-C-3924, driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner at high speed came from L.B.Nagar side and
dashed against the deceased and one Motorcycle bearing No.AP-
MGP,J
11-S-8954, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and died
while undergoing treatment at Osmania General Hospital.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Saroornagar Police Station,
registered a case in Crime No.1353 of 2008, under Sections 304-A
and 337 IPC.
5. It is stated by the petitioners that before the accident, the
deceased was aged 25 years and used to work as a Salesman in a
Private Firm at Hyderabad and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month
and contribute the same towards maintenance of their family.
Due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners
lost their bread winner and were suffering with mental pain and
agony and severe hardship. Hence, filed claim petition seeking
compensation seeking compensation against the respondents 1& 2.
6. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/owner of the Lorry
bearing No.MH-04-C-3924, remained ex-parte.
7. Respondent No.2/New India Assurance Company filed its
counter denying the averments made in the claim petition
including, rash and negligent act on part of the driver of the crime
Lorry, age, occupation, income and relationship of the deceased
with the petitioners and contended that though the driver of the
crime Lorry do not possess valid and effective driving license at the
MGP,J
time of accident, but the owner of the said Lorry had willfully
handed over his vehicle to him and committed breach of terms and
conditions of policy, as such, they are not liable to pay any
compensation and moreover, the claim of compensation is excess
and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
8. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting
trial:
i. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so,
at what quantum and from whom?
iii. To what relief?
9. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 & 2
were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of
respondents no oral was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy of
insurance policy was marked with consent.
10. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the
claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.2,34,000/- with
proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of realization. Having not satisfied with the
MGP,J
said compensation amount, the claimants preferred the present
Appeal seeking enhancement of same.
11. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned
counsel for the appellants as well as Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2/Insurance
Company. Perused the record.
12. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellants as
stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunal ought
to have taken the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.9,000/-
instead of Rs.3,000/-. Learned counsel also contended that the
Tribunal erred in applying multiplier by considering the mother's
age instead of the deceased's age, it also ought to have granted
amounts under loss of estate and mental agony and hence prayed
to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal,
after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable
compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
14. Now the point that arises for determination is,
Whether the findings of the learned Tribunal
requires interference of this Court?
MGP,J
POINT:-
15. Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident and
liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at by the
Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no
necessity to again decide the above said aspects. The present
Appeal has been filed by the claimants only with regard to
enhancement of compensation.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that though it
is stated by the petitioners in their evidence that the deceased used
to earn Rs.9,000/- per month by working as a Salesman in a
private firm at Hyderabad, but the learned Tribunal did not
consider the same and fixed his notional income @ Rs.3,000/- per
month and had not considered awarding future prospects to the
established income of the deceased.
17. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that except relying
upon the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A6 which are
certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, scene of panchanama, inquest
report, MVI report and post-mortem examination report, the
petitioners failed to produce any documentary proof evidencing
that the deceased used to work as Salesman and earning
Rs.9,000/- per month. Hence, the learned Tribunal fixed the
notional income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month. However
MGP,J
this Court, considering the year of accident and age of the
deceased, the said amount appears to be less, hence inclined to
interfere with the same by relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1 wherein,
it is held that even though there is no proof of income and
earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated. Hence, taking
into consideration the avocation of the deceased, date of accident
and age of the deceased, this Court hereby fix the income of the
deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month.
18. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned
Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the established income
of the deceased. Hence, this Court, by considering the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranay
Sethi 2 , hereby add 40% towards future prospects to the income of
the deceased since the deceased being 25 years old at the time of
accident and is self-employed. Thus, the net monthly income of the
deceased comes to Rs.6,300/-. Since the deceased being Bachelor,
50% is deducted towards his personal expenses. Then his net
monthly income comes to Rs.3,150/- and the annual income
comes to Rs.37,800/-. After applying relevant multiplier '18', the
total loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,80,400/-. Further, the
(2001) 8 SCC 197
(2017 (6) 170 SC)
MGP,J
appellants are also awarded a sum of Rs.33,000/- towards
conventional heads as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi &
others (2017 ACJ 2700). Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled
for a total compensation of Rs.7,13,400/-.
19. Since the compensation arrived is more than the claim
amount, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singh
and others 3 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
compensation can be granted more than the claim made based on
cogent and convincing evidence.
20. 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.
21. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.2,34,000/- to Rs.7,13,400/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by
respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. The respondents Nos.1 &
AIR 2003 SC 674
MGP,J
2 are directed to deposit the said compensation within a period of 2
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon
such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the
same as per the apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by
paying deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Dt.27.02.2025
ysk
