Telangana High Court
Nakka Nirmala, R.R. Dist 3 Others vs G. Sathish Reddy, Nellore Ano on 8 March, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1122 of 2013 & 1146 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No. 1702 of 2011, dated 27.12.2012, the claimants preferred MACMA.No. 1122 of 2013. Whereas, MACMA No. 1146 of 2013 is preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal, challenging the very same order and decree of the Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant.
2. On 29.04.2011, at about 23:15 hours, while the deceased, Nakka Dasu, aged 30 years, was proceeding on Scooter bearing No. AP 28 AC 9766 as a pillion rider along with rider, Deshogoni Raju @ Raju Goud, from B.N. Reddy Nagar to Gurramguda, and when they reached Gurramguda X Road on Nagarjuna Sagar Highway, the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Bus bearing No. AP 26X 1317, owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2, drove the Bus with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, went wrong side of the road and dashed against the Scooter from behind, as a result, the deceased and the rider of the Scooter died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was running a hotel at Thorrur Village 2 and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and therefore, they laid a claim for Rs.10.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the Insurance Company, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.7,42,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum, holding the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
3. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants in MACMA No. 1122 of 2013 contends that the learned Tribunal having held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, erred in not granting total compensation as claimed by the claimants for the death of deceased. The deceased was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by running a hotel at Thorrur and the claimants have substantiated the said fact by producing Ex.A.8, business license, but the learned Tribunal without considering the same and without there being any contra evidence adduced by the Insurance Company, erroneously restricted the income of the deceased to Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further contended that as per the decision of 3 the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, 40% to the income of the deceased needs to be added towards future prospects and under the conventional heads, they are entitled to Rs.77,000/-.
5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- towards loss of dependency by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month without there being any proof; that the Tribunal failed to see that the claimants did not substantiate Ex.A.8 by examining the Village Sarpanch, who is the author of Ex.A. 8 and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver in causing the accident on 29.04.2011, which resulted in the death of the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 30 years and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month by running Hotel business at Thorrur. In support of their claim, Ex.A.8, business license issued by the Sarpanch was produced. However, in support of their claim as 1 2017 ACJ 2700 4 to the income of the deceased and the hotel business, they failed to substantiate the same by examining the Sarpanch of the Village, who issued Ex.A.8 certificate. Hence, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), to the income of the deceased, 40% needs to be added towards future prospects. Hence, by duly adding 40% to the income of the deceased, the monthly future income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.7,000/-. As the dependents are four in number, after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased therefrom, the net monthly income comes to Rs.5,250/- and the annual loss of income of claimants would be Rs.63,000/-. Even though the claimants claimed that the deceased was 30 years, the Tribunal rightly took the age of the deceased as 34 years, as reflected in Ex.A.3 Post-Mortem Examination Report. Considering the age of the deceased as 34 years, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier '16'. Applying the multiplier of '16' to the annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency is fixed at Rs.10,08,000/-. Thus, under this head, the claimants are entitled for the enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs.10,08,000 - Rs.7,20,000/-). That apart, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the amounts under conventional heads are fixed at Rs.77,000/-, instead of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of Rs.2,000/- granted by the Tribunal 5 towards charges for transportation of dead body of the deceased is not disturbed. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.10,87,000/-.
7. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. No. 1122 of 2013 is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.7,42,000/- to Rs.10,87,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in the O.P., jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the claim was only for Rs.10,00,000/-. If the deficit court fee is not paid as per Rule 475 of M.V. Rules before the Tribunal, the claimants are not entitled for execution of Award in respect of enhanced compensation. Consequently, M.A.C.M.A. No. 1146 of 2013 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI March 08, 2022 tsr 6 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1122 of 2013 & 1146 of 2013 DATE: 08-03-2022