Marla Laxmi 6 Ors vs V.Prabhakar Anr

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and decree, dated 05.01.2007 passed in O.P.No.368 of 2004 on the file

of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short “the Tribunalâ€), the appellants/claimants

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the

deceased-Marla Narsimhulu @ Narsimha, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 02.05.2004. It is stated that on the said date the

deceased was going to Boduppal from Mogilipaka Village of Valigonda Mandal in a Taxicab (Jeep) bearing No.AP 24 V 0479 and when they reached

Narapally bus stop, one Oil Tanker bearing No.AIJ 6939 dashed the Jeep while negotiating a curve toward Warangal Side by crossing the middle line

of the road, due to which, the deceased fell down from the jeep, sustained head injury and he was succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in

Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. On a complaint, a case in Crime No.84 of 2004 has been registered against the driver of the Oil Tanker. It is stated that

prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.3,500/- per month as agriculture labourer-cum-shepherd. On account of

death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income. The 1st respondent being the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent being

insurer of the Oil Tanker are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, rash and negligent driving of the Oil Tanker. It is also disputed

that the driver of the Oil Tanker was having valid driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was road worthy to ply.

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the deceased Marla Narsimhulu died due to rash and negligent driving of the Tanker bearing No.AIJ 6939?

2) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation from whom?

3) To what relief.

During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents neither oral nor

documentary evidence was adduced.

After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that there was 50% negligence on the part of the driver of the Oil Tanker and 50%

negligence on the part of the driver of the Jeep, in which the deceased was traveling and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- 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 claimants mainly submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the

driver of the Jeep in which the deceased was traveling. It is also submitted that though the deceased was getting Rs.3,500/- per month, the Tribunal

erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- 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.1,500/- 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 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. It is also submitted that the Tribunal

has rightly fixed 50% contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep in which the deceased was traveling, which needs no interference.

Insofar as the contributory negligence is concerned, as per the contents of Ex.A3-charge sheet, there is head on collision between the Jeep and Oil

Tanker, which are coming in opposite direction. P.W.2 deposed that both the vehicles are coming from opposite direction and the accident took place

when the drivers of both the vehicles are negligent. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A3, the Tribunal has held that

the drivers of the both the vehicles are equally responsible for the accident and hence, the said finding is found to be proper and correct. Therefore

this Court does not call for any interference on this aspect.

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was working as Shephard and earning

Rs.3,500/- per month but no proof of income has been filed. In catena of decisions 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 40% 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.4,200/- (Rs.3,000/-

+ Rs.1200/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) as the dependents are six in number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of

the deceased to the family would be Rs.3,150/- per month and Rs.37,800/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of the

accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra). Adopting

multiplier ‘17’, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.37,800/- x 17, which comes to Rs.6,42,600/-. The claimants are also entitled to

Rs.70,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi’s case (1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.7,12,600/-. Since the

claimants did not implead the owner and insurer of the Jeep in which the deceased was traveling and that there was a contributory negligence of 50%

on the part of the driver of the jeep, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,56,300/- towards 50% of the compensation.

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- 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 another (2011) 10 SCC 756, the Apex Court while

referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 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.â€​

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 in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,02,000/- to

Rs.3,56,300/-. 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.