http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14378&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A.No.213 OF 2006
06-10-2017
Giddaluri Kasthuramma (died) Giddaluri Naga Jyothi and others. Appellants
K. Sivaprakasam and another Respondents
Counsel for the appellants:Sri M. Venkata Narayana
Counsel for the respondents :None appeared
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. MANU/SC/7089/2008
2. MANU/SC/7776/2007
3. MANU/SC/7915/2007
4. (2007) 3 SCC 538
5. 2009 (6) SCC 121
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A. No.213 of 2006
JUDGMENT :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act), is preferred by
the appellants/petitioners seeking enhancement of
compensation challenging the order and decree dated
26.10.2005 in O.P.No.585 of 2003 passed by the Motor
Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge),
Nellore (for brevity the Tribunal), awarding compensation of
Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as against the
claim of Rs.4,00,000/- laid by them under Section 166 of the
Act, for the death of the deceased Nagaraju in a motor
accident that occurred on 27.05.2003.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the
petitioners, who filed O.P.No.585 of 2003 claiming
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against respondent Nos.1 and
2, who are owner and insurer, respectively, of the offending
Lorry, for the death of the deceased Nagaraju, aged 27
years, in a motor accident that occurred on 27.05.2003 at 2.10
a.m., stating that while the deceased was running a Hotel at
Ananthavaram village, the driver of the lorry bearing
No.NL.01/A-5843 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the hotel, as a result of which, the deceased
died instantaneously.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 owner of the
offending vehicle remained exparte and the 2nd respondent
insurer alone contested the claim by filing counter denying its
liability and contending that the quantum of compensation
claimed is highly excessive and untenable.
4. After considering the pleadings and evidence available on
record, vide order and decree dated 26.10.2005, the Tribunal
awarded a compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- with proportionate
costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition
till realization payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally. Having dissatisfied with the said compensation, the
petitioners have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard Sri M. Venkatanarayana, learned counsel for the
appellantspetitioners. Though notice is served on the 2nd
respondent insurer, none appeared on their behalf. Perused
the order under challenge and also the evidence on record.
6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal
is, whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation?
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
though the age of the deceased was 27 years old by the date of
accident and he was earning Rs.150/- per day, the Tribunal
has taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.40/- per day and @
Rs.1,200/- per month, which is very meager. His main
argument is with regard to the notional income of the deceased
adopted by the Tribunal at Rs.1,200/- per month in assessing
the compensation.
8. At the outset, it is obvious that the Tribunal has
answered issue No.1 in favour of the appellants holding that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the crime lorry. The said fact has not been
disputed by the insurer of the crime vehicle by filing any appeal
or cross-objections. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard
to the liability of the 2nd respondent insurer. The dispute is
only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the
deceased as Rs.1,200 per month @ Rs.40/- per day, as he was
working as daily wage labourer. No doubt, there is no proof
with regard to the income of the deceased and hence the
Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.1,200/- per month, which
appears to be on lower side. Therefore, in the light of the
catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Ramesh
Singh v. Satbir Singh , New India Assurance Company
Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Pathak , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Syed Ibrahim , New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v.
Kalpana (Smt) , a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month can be
taken as the monthly income of a person working in an
unorganized Sector.
10. In the instant case, there is also a dispute with regard to
the age of the deceased. Though the learned counsel for the
appellants contends that the age of the deceased was 27
years, the appellants have not produced any proof in that
regard, therefore, the Tribunal has taken the age of the
deceased as 35 years notionally basing on the age of his
children. However, this Court is not inclined to delve into the
said aspect of fixing the age of the deceased, since the Tribunal
has already taken the age of the deceased as 35 years,
which in my considered view is probable age of the deceased
having grown up children of 13 years old. As per the decision
in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another , the appropriate multiplier for the
age group of the deceased at 35 years is 16. If the income of
the deceased is taken as Rs.2,500/- per month, after deducting
1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the
contribution to the family will come to Rs.2,000/- per month
and Rs.24,000/- per annum. If the same is multiplied by the
appropriate multiplier 16, it comes to Rs.3,84,000/-.
Therefore, the appellants are entitled for a sum of
Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of dependency. Besides the same,
the Tribunal has awarded non-pecuniary damages of
Rs.15,000/- and if the same is added, it comes to
Rs.3,99,000/-.
11. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced as mentioned below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation towards Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
Rs. Rs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Loss of dependency 1,53,600.00 3,84,000.00
2. Non-pecuniary damages 15,000.00 15,000.00
--------------- ---------------
TOTAL : 1,68,600.00 3,99,000.00
--------------- ---------------
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in
part, enhancing the amount of compensation from
Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety
nine thousand only) with proportionate costs and the enhanced
amount also shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are
directed to deposit the compensation amount within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On
such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the
same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. No
order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________________
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J
06.10.2017.
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A.No.213 OF 2006
06-10-2017
Giddaluri Kasthuramma (died) Giddaluri Naga Jyothi and others. Appellants
K. Sivaprakasam and another Respondents
Counsel for the appellants:Sri M. Venkata Narayana
Counsel for the respondents :None appeared
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. MANU/SC/7089/2008
2. MANU/SC/7776/2007
3. MANU/SC/7915/2007
4. (2007) 3 SCC 538
5. 2009 (6) SCC 121
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A. No.213 of 2006
JUDGMENT :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act), is preferred by
the appellants/petitioners seeking enhancement of
compensation challenging the order and decree dated
26.10.2005 in O.P.No.585 of 2003 passed by the Motor
Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge),
Nellore (for brevity the Tribunal), awarding compensation of
Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as against the
claim of Rs.4,00,000/- laid by them under Section 166 of the
Act, for the death of the deceased Nagaraju in a motor
accident that occurred on 27.05.2003.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the
petitioners, who filed O.P.No.585 of 2003 claiming
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against respondent Nos.1 and
2, who are owner and insurer, respectively, of the offending
Lorry, for the death of the deceased Nagaraju, aged 27
years, in a motor accident that occurred on 27.05.2003 at 2.10
a.m., stating that while the deceased was running a Hotel at
Ananthavaram village, the driver of the lorry bearing
No.NL.01/A-5843 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the hotel, as a result of which, the deceased
died instantaneously.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 owner of the
offending vehicle remained exparte and the 2nd respondent
insurer alone contested the claim by filing counter denying its
liability and contending that the quantum of compensation
claimed is highly excessive and untenable.
4. After considering the pleadings and evidence available on
record, vide order and decree dated 26.10.2005, the Tribunal
awarded a compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- with proportionate
costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition
till realization payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally. Having dissatisfied with the said compensation, the
petitioners have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard Sri M. Venkatanarayana, learned counsel for the
appellantspetitioners. Though notice is served on the 2nd
respondent insurer, none appeared on their behalf. Perused
the order under challenge and also the evidence on record.
6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal
is, whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation?
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
though the age of the deceased was 27 years old by the date of
accident and he was earning Rs.150/- per day, the Tribunal
has taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.40/- per day and @
Rs.1,200/- per month, which is very meager. His main
argument is with regard to the notional income of the deceased
adopted by the Tribunal at Rs.1,200/- per month in assessing
the compensation.
8. At the outset, it is obvious that the Tribunal has
answered issue No.1 in favour of the appellants holding that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the crime lorry. The said fact has not been
disputed by the insurer of the crime vehicle by filing any appeal
or cross-objections. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard
to the liability of the 2nd respondent insurer. The dispute is
only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the
deceased as Rs.1,200 per month @ Rs.40/- per day, as he was
working as daily wage labourer. No doubt, there is no proof
with regard to the income of the deceased and hence the
Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.1,200/- per month, which
appears to be on lower side. Therefore, in the light of the
catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Ramesh
Singh v. Satbir Singh , New India Assurance Company
Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Pathak , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Syed Ibrahim , New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v.
Kalpana (Smt) , a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month can be
taken as the monthly income of a person working in an
unorganized Sector.
10. In the instant case, there is also a dispute with regard to
the age of the deceased. Though the learned counsel for the
appellants contends that the age of the deceased was 27
years, the appellants have not produced any proof in that
regard, therefore, the Tribunal has taken the age of the
deceased as 35 years notionally basing on the age of his
children. However, this Court is not inclined to delve into the
said aspect of fixing the age of the deceased, since the Tribunal
has already taken the age of the deceased as 35 years,
which in my considered view is probable age of the deceased
having grown up children of 13 years old. As per the decision
in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another , the appropriate multiplier for the
age group of the deceased at 35 years is 16. If the income of
the deceased is taken as Rs.2,500/- per month, after deducting
1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the
contribution to the family will come to Rs.2,000/- per month
and Rs.24,000/- per annum. If the same is multiplied by the
appropriate multiplier 16, it comes to Rs.3,84,000/-.
Therefore, the appellants are entitled for a sum of
Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of dependency. Besides the same,
the Tribunal has awarded non-pecuniary damages of
Rs.15,000/- and if the same is added, it comes to
Rs.3,99,000/-.
11. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced as mentioned below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation towards Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
Rs. Rs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Loss of dependency 1,53,600.00 3,84,000.00
2. Non-pecuniary damages 15,000.00 15,000.00
--------------- ---------------
TOTAL : 1,68,600.00 3,99,000.00
--------------- ---------------
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in
part, enhancing the amount of compensation from
Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety
nine thousand only) with proportionate costs and the enhanced
amount also shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are
directed to deposit the compensation amount within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On
such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the
same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. No
order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________________
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J
06.10.2017.
