Algola Srinivas And 2 Others vs Paramjeet Kaur And Another

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and decree, dated 11.07.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.59 of 2010 on

the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, 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, who are the children of one Algola Gangaram (hereinafter referred to as “the deceasedâ€), filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place

on 04.01.2010. It is stated that on 04.01.2010 while the deceased was coming to Usirikapally on his LML Scooter from Borabanda and when he

reached the outskirts of Andole Village, a lorry bearing No.MP-9-KC-8070 came from Jogipet side, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

at high speed and dashed the scooter of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Due to

sudden death of the deceased, the claimants lost their source of income and love and affection. It is stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was

hale and healthy and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by working as a Security Guard in Janapriya Apartments. Hence, the claimants filed the above

claim-petition against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the said lorry, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the

death of the deceased.

The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments in the petition in a general manner and also denied the negligence of the driver of the crime

vehicle. It is also denied the insurance of the crime vehicle and validity of the driving licence of the driver.

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 the crime vehicle?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.1 was

examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the Lorry was responsible for the accident and accordingly

awarded an amount of Rs.1,82,000/- with interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the respondents.

Learned Counsel for the claimants mainly submits that though the deceased was getting Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal has erred in fixing the

income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- 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 others 2017 ACJ 2700, the claimants are 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.2,000/- 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 (2017 ACJ 2700

supra) and as per that judgment, the claimants are entitled 10% 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 claimants claimed that the deceased was working in a kirana shop and earning

Rs.5,000/- per month but no proof of income has been filed. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 197 the Apex Court held that even

there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably estimated minimum at Rs.3,000/-per month for any non-earning member. Therefore, this

Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month. Apart from the same, the claimants are entitled to addition of 10%

towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, monthly income of the

deceased comes to Rs.3,300/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.300/-). After deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the

deceased would be Rs.2,200/- per month and Rs.26,400/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased was 52 years at the time of the accident, the

appropriate multiplier is ‘11’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). Adopting

multiplier ‘11’, his total loss of earnings would be Rs.26,400/- x 18, which comes to Rs.2,90,400/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.30,000/-

towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi’s case (2017 ACJ 2700 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to

Rs.3,20,400/-.

Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,82,000/- to

Rs.3,20,400/-. 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 respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion in

which original compensation amounts were directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.