Telangana High Court
M. Krishnaiah, Mahabubnagar District ... vs K. Anjaneyulu, Mahaboobnagar District ... on 22 February, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3164 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the award and decree, dated 16.04.2007, passed in O.P.No.51 of 2004 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/ claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The claimants are the parents of one Pravalika (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). It is the case of the claimants that on 19.11.2003 at about 10.00 A.M., while the deceased was crossing the road at Kurumurthy Jatara, one Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 22 T 8840 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. 2 Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No.56 of 2003 has been registered against the driver of the Auto. The deceased is the only daughter of the claimants. Therefore, they filed claim- petition against the respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said Auto, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the death of the deceased.
Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the mode and manner in which the accident took place. It is also contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and the compensation claimed is highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto Rickshaw Bearing No.AP 22 T 8840?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, and if so, to what amount and against whom?
3) To what relief?3
During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-policy was marked by consent.
After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants.
Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions, the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, he prayed to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
There is no dispute with regard to the accident in question and involvement of the offending vehicle. The negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle is also not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent.
4
Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 13 years at the time of accident. In Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others1 the Apex Court having considered the grant of compensation in similar circumstances, has awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of a 10 year old boy. Recently, in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu2 the Apex Court has awarded an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- by fixing the notional income of the deceased boy, who was aged about 10 years, at Rs.25,000/- and multiplied by '15'.
In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Murmu (2 supra) and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.4,70,000/- to the claimants.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is impermissible under law. 1 (2014) 1 SCC 244 2 Civil Appeal No.6902/2021 (SC) 5 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."
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 endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby 3 (2011) 10 SCC 756 4 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 6 enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.4,70,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award passed by the Tribunal i.e., 16.04.2007 till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. During the pendency of the appeal, the 2nd claimant died and to that effect, the learned Counsel for the appellants filed memo appended to the death certificate of the 2nd claimant. Hence, the 1st claimant alone is entitled the enhanced amount. The 1st claimant shall be permitted to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. However, the 1st claimant is 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 22.02.2022 gkv 7