THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
M.A.C.M.A. No.481 OF 2007
Date: 09.07.2014
Between:
The Chairman and Managing Director, M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, 2-4-1/4, 1st floor, Secunderabad, rep. by its Branch Manager at Sangareddy.
… Appellant And Baddi Bal Reddy and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
M.A.C.M.A. No.481 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed by the United India Insurance Company being aggrieved by the order/award dated 30.11.2006 passed in O.P.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, ‘Tribunal”) wherein a sum of Rs.8,64,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. was awarded as compensation.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents and perused the material available on record.
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 herein filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- for the death of one Mahender @ B. Mahender Reddy in an accident that occurred on 3.10.2004 at about 7.30 p.m. at Bowenpally Cross Roads, Near Bowenpally Bus Stop, Hyderabad. It is stated that on the fateful day while the deceased was proceeding towards bus stop near Bowenpally Cross Roads, a Lorry (tipper) bearing Regn. No.AP 9 X 7929 came from behind him and dashed the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased fell down and thereafter the said lorry ran over his right hip and pelvis leading to crush injuries to his internal organs apart from multiple fractures to pelvis hips and thighs. Thereafter, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. In respect of the above incident, a case in Crime No.311 of 2014 was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle for an offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. It is stated that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident and was a brilliant student studying III year Engineering in DVR College of Engineering & Technology. He had a bright future and good chances of getting a job and placement in U.S.A. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of crime vehicle, the claimants filed O.P.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy seeking compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs and fifty thousand only) against both the respondents.
The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and also the manner in which the accident took place. He further submitted that since the crime vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company, he is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the claimants.
The Insurance Company filed their counter denying the allegations in the petition and also the manner in which the accident took place.
Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle?
(2) What is the just compensation the petitioners are entitled to?
(3) To what relief?
In support of the case, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. The respondents got marked Ex.B-1 Policy Copy with the consent. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court below held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry (Tipper) bearing Regn. No. AP 9 X 7929 and awarded compensation of Rs.8,64,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization to the legal heirs or dependants of the deceased. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.
The points that arises for consideration is whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and whether the compensation of Rs.8,64,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable, just and fair.
In order to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, the claimants examined P.W.2 who was an eye- witness to the incident. According to him, on 3.10.2004 at about 7.00 or 7.15 p.m. while he was returning with the deceased from Bowenpally and when they were walking on the left side of the road, a Lorry (Tipper) driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed the deceased. The deceased fell down and thereafter lorry ran over the deceased. It was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that when the deceased and himself were proceeding from Bowenpally to Secunderabad, the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry (Tipper) came from behind and hit the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased in crossing the road. In spite of such denial, no contra evidence was let in by the respondents. The evidence of P.W.2 gets corroboration from Ex.A1 First Information Report, Ex.A4 Charge-sheet and Ex.A5 MVI Report. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle needs no interference.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, the 1st claimant, who is the father of the deceased, examined himself as P.W.1. In his evidence, P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was studying III year Engineering in DVR College, Kandi, Sangareddy and that he was his only son. According to him, his son was a brilliant student and had his son been alive he would have got a very good job and placement in U.S.A. after completion of Engineering. The deceased was bachelor and aged about 20 years. The age of the mother of the deceased was 40 years at the time of incident.
The fact that the deceased was a brilliant and had bright future was established by examining P.W.3 who was a student from the same college. According to P.W.3, he has completed his Engineering in April, 2006 and joined in M/s. Mahendra & Mahendra, Zaheerabad in July, 2006 on a monthly salary of Rs.9,000/-. His evidence disclose that the deceased was brilliant and meritorious in academics. Though P.W.3 was cross-examined at length, nothing useful was elicited to discredit the testimony. Since the deceased would be in a position to earn a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month after completion of his engineering, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-, and after deducting one-third towards his personal and living expenses held that the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.6,000/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal took the age of the mother of the deceased for selecting a suitable multiplier. In Ex.A2 Inquest report and Ex.A4 charge-sheet, the age of the mother of the deceased was recorded as 40 years. Basing on the above, the Tribunal took into consideration the age of the mother of the deceased as 40 years and applied multiplier “12.79” (12) for the purpose of calculating the total loss of earnings. Applying multiplier “12”, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,64,000/- as compensation. However, no amounts were awarded towards loss of love and affection, funeral and transportation charges. The claimants did not prefer any appeal challenging the said order.
The only contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that deducting one-third towards personal and living expenses of the deceased when he is a bachelor is incorrect. According to him, in view
[1]
of the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC the Tribunal ought to have deducted at least 50% from the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses. Hence, he submits that the amount of compensation has to be reduced.
Though the claimants have not filed any appeal questioning the quantum awarded under but in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
[2]
Ranjana Prakash v. Divisional Manager the claimants can always argue for the compensation to be awarded on other counts which were not considered by Tribunal in an appeal filed by the owner/insurer. But the High Court cannot increase the quantum in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
It would be necessary to extract the relevant paragraph from the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash’s case (2 supra) which is as under:
“Para 8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.”
It is no doubt true that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA’S case (1 supra) the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. But the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that the Tribunal below committed grave error in taking the age of the mother of the deceased as 40 years for the purpose of calculating the loss of dependency and applying multiplier “12”. According to him, even if the age of the mother of the deceased was taken into consideration for selecting the multiplier the suitable multiplier would be “13” in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA’S case (1 supra). As stated earlier, the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards Funeral expenses, transportation and loss of love and affection.
In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash’s case (2 supra), the plea of the claimants with regard to application of multiplier ‘13’ for calculating the loss of dependency can be accepted though it is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. It is further seen that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards funeral expenses and also towards loss of love and affection. Even if 50% of the income is deducted towards living expenses of the deceased and the multiplier adopted is ‘13’ instead of ‘12’ and compensation towards loss of love and affection, transport and funeral expenses are awarded, the quantum of compensation which the claimants are entitled to will be more than the amount awarded.
Hence, I am of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal warrants no interference.
Accordingly, the Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR,J Dt 09.07.2014 gbs
[1] (2009) 6 SCC 121
[2] (2011) 14 SCC 639