Telangana High Court
D Srinivasa Chary And Another vs Harmeet Kaur And Another on 28 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.831 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Ms. B.Roja Ramani for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. N.J.Sunil Kumar, for the respondent no.2-insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/ claimants dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.786 of 2013, dated 10.04.2015 and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. Appellant herein is the petitioner no.2/claimant, respondent no.1 herein is the respondent no.1-owner of the crime vehicle and respondent no.2 herein is the respondent no.2-insurance company before the Tribunal. Petitioner no.1 before the Tribunal expired on 07.06.2016 leaving behind the petitioner no.2 as his sole legal heir. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
2
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under. 4.1. On 07.02.2013 at about 10.30 p.m., while the deceased- D.Prem Teja, aged 7 years, was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-BR-1261 along with his father--D.Srinivasa Chary, from Gayatrinagar towards Pindi Pulla Reddy Colony and when they reached in front of Alekya Apartments at Sagar Enclave Arch, lorry bearing registration No.RJ-06-GA-4702 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle), came in rash and negligent manner and dashed their motorcycle from behind. As a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and the crime lorry ran over him and caused instantaneous death. The Police, L.B.Nagar Police Station registered a case in Crime No.158/2013 against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimants, i.e., the parents of the deceased filed claim petition against the owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization.
3
6. The deceased was aged about 7 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was studying 2nd class with bright future and due to ultimate death of their son, the claimants are put to great hardship and suffered mental agony.
7. The respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex- parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the narration of the claimants with respect to the manner of occurrence of accident and the age of the deceased and further contended that the owner of the motorcycle and its insurance are proper and necessary parties to the claim petition and since they are not made parties, the claim petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.RJ-06-GA-4702 causing the death of D.Prem Teja ?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom ?
3) To what relief?
9. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, the claimant no.1 was examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to 4 A12 are marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurance company, none were examined, however, Ex.B1 was marked.
10. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and evidence placed on record, has come to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and awarded a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- towards compensation with costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for appellant/ petitioner no.2 submitted that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation considering that the deceased was only issue of the petitioners and failed to measure the mental shock and attachment of the parents would be more since the deceased is the only issue. He further submitted that Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the deceased would have taken good care of the petitioner no.2 in old age and finally prayed to enhance the compensation.
12. Learned counsel for appellant/petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 5
i) Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd., vs. Siddhant Mahendra Kadam 1;
ii) Muhammed vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others 2;
iii) Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & others 3;
iv) Krishna Devi and another vs. Balbir Singh and others 4;
v) Manoj Kumar Sah and another v. Lal Bahadur Singh and others;
vi) G.Vivek vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And anohter 5;
vii) Sharafat Khan and another v. Northern Railway and another 6
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- insurance company contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal and he also relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurvan Ansari alias Kurvan Ali and another vs. Shyam Kishore Muru and another 7 and also Meena Devi (supra). 1 2023 ACJ 1086 2 2023 ACJ 894 3 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 841 4 2023 ACJ 1382 5 2023 ACJ 585 6 2023 ACJ 1716 7 (2022) 1 SCC 317 6 Consideration :
14. It is not in dispute that the deceased-D.Prem Teja expired in a fatal accident that occurred on 07.02.2013 at about 8.00 p.m., while he was proceeding with his father on motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, who dashed the said motorcycle from behind.
15. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that Tribunal erred in not awarding just compensation without appreciating the fact that the deceased is the only issue of the claimants and failed to consider oral and documentary evidence.
16. Perusal of the record and the award passed by the Tribunal would disclose that the deceased was aged 7 years as on the date of the accident, which is evident from Ex.A3-CC of inquest and Ex.A4-CC of postmortem reports. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence and also decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners before the Tribunal, had awarded total compensation of Rs.4,90,000/-, which includes Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, loss of rights of a child and funeral expenses.
7
17. In Meena Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"14. Recently in Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu [Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , wherein a child aged about 7 years died in a road accident took place on 6-9-2004, this Court taking notional income as Rs. 25,000, applying the multiplier of 15, calculated the loss of dependency as Rs 3,75,000 and adding Rs 55,000 in conventional heads, awarded Rs 4,70,000.
15. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is apparent that in the cases of child death, the notional income of Rs 15,000 as specified in the IInd Schedule of the MV Act has been enhanced on account of devaluation of money and value of rupee coming down from the date on which the IInd Schedule of the MV Act was introduced and the said notional income was treated as Rs 30,000 in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] and Rs 25,000 in Kurvan Ansari [Kurvan Ansari v. Shyam Kishore Murmu, (2022) 1 SCC 317 : (2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 365 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] in age group of 10 and 7 years respectively.
16. Thus applying the ratio of the said judgments, looking to the age of the child in the present case i.e. 12 years, the principles laid down in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 184 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 241] are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. As per the ocular statement of the mother of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was a brilliant student and studying in a private school. Therefore, accepting the notional earning Rs 30,000 including future prospect and applying the multiplier of 15 in view of the decision of this Court in Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , the loss of dependency comes to Rs 4,50,000 and if we add Rs 50,000 in conventional heads, then the total sum of compensation comes to Rs 5,00,000. ......."
18. Thus, applying the ratio of the said judgment, considering the age of the child in the present case i.e. 7 years, the principles laid down in Kishan Gopal [Kishan Gopal v. Lala, (2014) 1 SCC 244] are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case. 8 Therefore, in considered view of this Court, the notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.30,000/- per annum including future prospect as non-earning member in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Meena Devi (supra). Since the age of the deceased was 7 years at the time of the accident, as per the decision of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 8 , the proper multiplier would be 15. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,50,000/-. The petitioner is also entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
19. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant/ petitioner is entitled to the following amounts:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income including future Rs.30,000 per annum
prospects
2 Multiplier 15
3 Loss of dependency (Rs.4,50,000/-
(Rs.30,000/- x 15)
4 Filial of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
8
(2009) 6 SCC 121
9
5 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
6 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs. 5,20,000/-
20. The Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,90,000/- to Rs.5,20,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are directed to pay the said compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant herein is entitled to withdraw the total compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ [[ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 28.06.2024 kkm