G Ramulamma , Balamani, Hyderabad And 3 Others v. U M S Jagadish, Kurnool And ANR

HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No. 3028 of 2014 JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 14.06.2013 passed in O.P.No.1760 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

3.

The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of one G. Chennaiah (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.04.2011. It is stated that on 07.04.2011 while the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle after purchasing the flowers at M.J.Market and when he reached near Gowliguda Chaman

Jambagh, one Lorry bearing No.AP 13 U 8038, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the cycle and also ran over the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. It is also stated that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing flowers business and due to sudden demise of the deceased, the appellants lost their source of income.

4.

After considering the claim and the counters filed by respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P.

and awarded compensation of Rs.5,41,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the claimants seeking enhancement.

5.

Heard and perused the record.

6.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that as per the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the appellants are also entitled to the future prospects and also Rs.77,000/- under conventional heads.

7.

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the issue with regard to the future prospects has been considered by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi and others (supra) and as per that judgment, the appellants are entitled 25% 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. 8.

A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence, 1 2017 ACJ 2700

has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry and has answered the issue in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry.

9.

Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the appellants claimed that the deceased was doing flower business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month as the appellants did not produce any proof to show that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. A perusal of the evidence available on record, more particularly the evidence of P.W.3 would show that the deceased was doing flower business for the last 10 years and no contra evidence was adduced by the respondents to show that the deceased was not doing flower business. Therefore, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, this Court is inclined to take the

income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Apart from the same, the claimants are also entitled to addition of 25% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra).

Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,250/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.1,250/-). As the dependants are four in number, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.4,688/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was 46 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma (supra). Adopting multiplier '13', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.4,688/- x 12 x 13 = 7,31,328/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,08,328/-. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

10. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.5,41,500/- to Rs.8,08,318/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization. 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.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 04.11.2022 tsr

HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No. 3028 of 2014 DATE: 3028 of 2014