Telangana High Court
Madaboina Ambavva, Nizamabad vs B Satish, Nizamabad Anr on 22 February, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.4073 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 02.09.2014 passed in O.P.No.117 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad, the appellant/ claimant 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 claimant, who is the mother of Madaboina Krishna (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.07.2011. It is stated that on that date the deceased was proceeding on his cycle to his work place and when he reached near Arsapally Railway Gate, one Lorry bearing No. AP 25 T 8181 2 GSD, J Macma_4073_2014 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the cycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down on the road and the lorry ran over him. As a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing mason work. On account of death of the deceased, the claimant lost her source of income. The 1st respondent being the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments in the petition including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also stated that the deceased contributed to the occurrence of accident by riding his cycle in rash and negligent manner. It is further stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
3
GSD, J Macma_4073_2014
1) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.AP-25-T-8181 by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?
3) To what relief?
During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 was marked.
After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in riding the cycle and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents.
Learned Counsel for the claimant mainly submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the age of the deceased not the age of his mother for assessing the loss of dependency in view of 4 GSD, J Macma_4073_2014 the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1. It is further submitted that though the deceased was getting Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. It is further submitted that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the claimant is also entitled to the future prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of the deceased may be taken into consideration reasonably for assessing loss of dependency and prayed to enhance the same.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the income of the deceased has rightly been taken by the Tribunal as Rs.4,000/- per month since no documents have been produced to prove the income of the deceased. On the point of future prospects, learned Counsel submits that the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2 supra) and as per that judgment, the claimant is 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 2017 ACJ 2700 5 GSD, J Macma_4073_2014 entitled 40% amount towards future prospects. It is further submitted that the compensation towards non-pecuniary damages has been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the same need not be enhanced.
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 by the respondents.
Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimant claimed that the deceased was doing mason work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month but no proof of income has been filed. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month. Apart from the same, the claimant is entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (2 supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,600/- (Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1600/-). Since the deceased was a bachelor, his personal and living expenses shall be 50% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.2,800/- per month. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal 6 GSD, J Macma_4073_2014 Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others3 when the deceased was a bachelor, the age of the deceased has to be considered while determining the multiplier and not the age of the mother. Since the age of the deceased was 22 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma case (1 supra). Adopting multiplier 18, total loss of earnings would be Rs.2,800/- x 12 x 18= Rs.6,04,800/-. The claimant is also entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's case (2 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,37,800/-.
At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimant claimed only a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another4, the Apex 3 2015 (6) SCC 347 4 (2011) 10 SCC 756 7 GSD, J Macma_4073_2014 Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh5 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 claimant is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimant to a just and reasonable extent.
Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.3,86,000/- to Rs.6,37,800/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of order passed by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 5 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 8 GSD, J Macma_4073_2014 and 2 jointly and severally. However, the 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 9 GSD, J Macma_4073_2014