Telangana High Court
Shaik Moin Miya, Nizamabad 8 Others vs A Mahesh, Nizamabad Dist Anr on 30 June, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1825 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 08.06.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.395 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who are the husband and children of one Smt. Waheeda Bee (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") filed a petition, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.06.2010. It is stated that on that day while the deceased was crossing the road near bus stand, Metpally, one Tipper bearing No.AP 13 X 6332 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased, due to which she sustained bleeding injuries and she 2 GSD, J Macma_1825_2015 succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by working as beedi roller. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper, the claimants filed the claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the Tipper, respectively.
4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte.
5. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the claimants did not furnish the copy of insurance policy and that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether Smt. Waheeda Bee died of the injuries received in the accident occurred on 08.06.2010 at about 14.00 hours near new bus stand, Metpally?3
GSD, J Macma_1825_2015
2) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper bearing No.AP 13 X 6332 by its driver?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?
4) To what relief?
7. On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.
8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tipper by its driver and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellants along with an application seeking amendment of the compensation claimed from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-.
9. Heard and perused the record.
4
GSD, J Macma_1825_2015
10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.
11. A perusal of the material available on record would show that the appellants claimed that the deceased was a beedi roller and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but no documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants. Considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month.
12. Insofar as the future prospects are concerned to the housewives, the Apex Court recently in Kirti and another etc. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.1 made certain general observations regarding the issue of calculation of notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation, which can be summarized as follows:
1
AIR 2021 SC 353 5 GSD, J Macma_1825_2015 "a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.
b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.
c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.
e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation."6
GSD, J Macma_1825_2015
13. In view of above said decision, the appellants shall be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 25%. Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,000/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1000/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.3,750/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier would be '14' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra). Adopting multiplier '14', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.3,750/- x 12 x 14 = Rs.6,30,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,07,000/-.
14. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the quantum of compensation which is 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 GSD, J Macma_1825_2015 now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
15. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another3, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
16. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always 3 (2011) 10 SCC 756 4 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 8 GSD, J Macma_1825_2015 endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
17. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,07,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned in the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 30.06.2022 gkv 9 GSD, J Macma_1825_2015