Telangana High Court
L Singh, Nizamabad Dist And 1 Other vs Ranga Rao Pendyala, Hyderabad And 1 ... on 14 July, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A.No.1741 OF 2017
JUDGMENT :
Being aggrieved by the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad in M.V.O.P.No.504 of 2015, dated 20.03.2017 whereunder the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation with costs and interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition on account of the death of their son in a road accident, the appellant have filed the present appeal and sought for enhancement of compensation.
2. As could be seen from the impugned order in the present appeal, the appellants have filed the petition under Section 166 (1) (c) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against respondent Nos.1 and 2 claiming an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation in view of death of their son by name Veeru Singh in a road accident. According to the petition filed by the petitioner before the Court below that on 14.06.2015 at about 01:00 P.M. while the deceased 2 MACMA No.1741 of 2017 boy was by the side of main road at Santhoshnagar, Sikh's Colony, at Armoor, the driver of a water tanker bearing No.AP-29-T-1230 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the deceased and ran over him, resulting his instantaneous death on the spot. The appellants have filed the above said petition for compensation. Both the respondents have contested the petition, disputing the material averments of the claim. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether on 14.06.2015 at about 1:00 p.m at Santhoshnagar sikh's colony, Armoor, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the water tanker No.AP-29-T-1230 by its driver?
2. Whether Veeru Singh received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?
4. To what relief?
3. During enquiry, the appellants have examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A6. The 2nd respondent has 3 MACMA No.1741 of 2017 examined RWs 1 to 2 and marked Exs.B1 to B4. The Tribunal having considered the contentions of both parties, has accepted the claim of the appellants herein and awarded Rs.2,25,000/- towards compensation. The trial Court considered the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and while applying multiplier '15' awarded fixed compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have filed the present appeal and claimed that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence and other record placed before it and the Tribunal ought to have considered that the deceased was run over by a vehicle, resulting multiple injuries and died on the spot in a ghastly accident. The mother of the deceased was an eye witness to the accident and she deposed about the manner of the accident. The Tribunal having considered the age of the boy being 4 years, came to a wrong conclusion that he was not admitted in school, the appellants are not entitled to enhanced compensation. Learned counsel while placing reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meena Devi vs 4 MACMA No.1741 of 2017 Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & others1, have claimed that the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation.
5. Reliance was also placed on another judgment between Kishan Gopal & Another vs Lala & Others2 and Manju Devi & Another vs Musafir Paswan & Another3.
6. Heard both parties.
7. Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the contentions of the appellants in proper way, thereby awarded insufficient amount as compensation? If so, whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced amount?
8. POINT:
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the accident, the appellants lost their only son in a road accident at his tender age. But, the Court below awarded a meager amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in spite of the fact that the appellants have filed petition for a nominal 1 2022 Law Suit (SC) 1218 2 2014 1 SCC 244 3 2003 SCC Online SC 18 5 MACMA No.1741 of 2017 amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. While relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court between Rajendra Singh & another vs National Insurance Company Limited & others4 and in another judgment between Kishan Gopal and others vs Lala and others5, the counsel has submitted that in the case of death of a minor, earlier as per the schedule-II of M.V.Act, the notional income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/-. But, in view of the later judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the notional income shall be treated as Rs.30,000/- per annum. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation.
9. There is no serious dispute about the death of deceased in the road accident. Even though nominal objections were raised by respondent Nos.1 and 2 about the manner of accident, the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with the documents including charge sheet filed against the driver of the vehicle proved the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the van. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to claimed 4 2020 ACJ 2211 5 (2014) 1 SCC 244 6 MACMA No.1741 of 2017 compensation for the death of their son. The 2nd respondent has filed the copy of policy by which it is very clear that as on the date of the accident, the 1st respondent owner of the bus insured the bus with the 2nd respondent under a valid policy. Similarly, there is no serious dispute about the validity of the driving license of the driver of the bus. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to receive compensation from both the respondents.
10. As already stated in the previous paragraphs, the Court below having accepted the contention of the appellants while placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra, granted a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. In a judgment between Kishan Gopal and Anr. vs Lala & Ors. the Hon'ble Apex Court made an observation that in case of death of a 10 years boy who was assisting their parents in their agricultural operations, it is just and reasonable to take his notional income as Rs.30,000/- per annum. For this proposition, the principles 7 MACMA No.1741 of 2017 in Lata Wadhwa and Ors. vs State of Bihar & Ors6 was relied upon.
11. It is true in the schedule-II of the M.V.Act, the amount fixed for notional income in case of the children between the age group of 10 to 15 years was Rs.15,000/- per year, but it was in the year 1994. In the other judgment relied on by the appellants in the case of Rajendra Singh & another vs National Insurance Company Limited & others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that in case of death of a minor children, the notional income applying a 50% deductions towards personal expenses with multiplier of '15' can be awarded.
12. In a recent judgment between Meena Devi vs Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & others in Civil Appeal No.7255 of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5345 of 2019), the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the cases between R.K. Malik & Anr vs Kiran Pal & Ors 7, Kishan Gopal referred supra, Sarala Verma and others vs Delhi Transpport Corporation and 6 (2001) 8 SCC 197 7 2009 14 SCC 1 8 MACMA No.1741 of 2017 another8 and Lata Wadhwa and Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors referred above, was pleaded to consider the notional income of the deceased between 10 to 15 years age group as Rs.30,000/- and enhanced the compensation.
13. In the case on hand, even though there is no oral evidence about the income of the deceased since there is no dispute about the age of the deceased and in the light of the above stated judgments, the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation by treating notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum. The relevant multiplier would be '15' (30,000x15=4,50,000). Therefore, the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards loss of dependency.
14. Apart from the said amount a sum of Rs.50,000/- can be awarded under conventional head in accordance with principles in judgment between General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas9 in relation to death of children between 10 to 15 years. The appellants are 8 2009 6 SCC 121 9 1994 2 SCC 176 9 MACMA No.1741 of 2017 entitled to the said compensation with interest @ 9% per annum.
15. The appellants have filed the main petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. In the light of above settled position of law and observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court, the appellants are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. A total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) together with costs of the petition/appeal and interest @ 9% from the date of the petition has been awarded. The appellants are entitled to receive the balance amount, after deducting the payment/deposit, if any, made by the respondent together with interest.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU Date:14/07/2023 PSSK