*HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
+M.A.C.M.A. No.1992 of 2007
% Dated 23.04.2014
Between:
# Yerrakula Sujatha ...Appellant
and
$ Shaik Mahaboob Jani and another
….Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri B.Parameswara Rao ^ Counsel for respondent No.1 : None Counsel for respondent No.2-
The National Insurance Company : Sri R.K.Suri Limited < GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. 2011(12) scale 336
2. AIR 2009 SC 2506
3. 2010 (4) ALD 531
4. 2013 ACJ 1253
5. 2014(1) SCC 244
6. (2005) 6 SCC 236
7. 2009 ACJ 1298
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1992 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
The injured girl aged hardly three years represented by father preferred the claim against the owner, insurer of the tipper bearing No.AP73577 in the claim preferred under Section 140, 163-A, 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), vide M.V.O.P. No. 1095 of 2001 on the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum–District Judge, Guntur (for short, ‘Tribunal’) for Rs.6,00,000/- awarded Rs.2,30,000/- with interest at 7%p.a. and aggrieved by the same preferred the appeal with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is utterly low, that the tribunal went wrong in not taking consideration of the multiplier method for the amputation of the left leg of the child for the lifelong suffering with disability effected marriage prospects, future prospects and education and requires artificial limb and its replacement. Hence, to award compensation as claimed before the tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same in the course of hearing.
2. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer (from 1st respondent-owner remained ex parte before the tribunal) that the compensation itself is excessive but for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere. Hence, to dismiss the appeal.
3. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant by placed reliance upon two expressions of the Apex Court 1) in Govind Yadav Vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited[1] where for an injured-claimant of 24 years for amputation of left leg with 70% disability above knee from the evidence awarded compensation of Rs.9,53,600/- under various heads including for first artificial limb and its replacement lifelong by awarding an amount but invested in Fixed Deposit to meet the interest for the purpose and other heads like loss of earnings and multiplier and
[2]
other decision of R.K.Malik Vs. Karanpal where for the death of 20 to 29 school children aged 10 to 15 years, awarded compensation of Rs.1,55,000/-; for the age group of 15 to 18 Rs.1,65,000/- and for 3 children below ten years of Rs.1,05,000/- and Rs.1,31,000/-. The Apex Court further enhanced 75,000/- additionally in each claim, with conclusion that what the tribunal awarded otherwise is just and which no way requires interference much less to reduce or enhance.
4. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
5). Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is unjust and utterly low and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award to enhance, if so, what just compensation to arrive, what rate of interest and with what observations?
2. To what result?
Point No.1:
6. The claim petition filed invoking two provisions under Section 166 and 163-A and the discussion in the award of the tribunal speaks it proceeded under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, with a finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle and thereby even no option to exercise before the commencement of the claim by the claimant, it is not a bar to consider the same under Section 166 of the Act as per expression in Apex Court in Bhupati
[3]
Prameela Vs. Superintendent of Police . There are no cross-
objections filed admittedly by the insurer in this case. While the tribunal categorically hold that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle of the 1st respondent, for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere but for the quantum.
7. Coming to the quantum of compensation as per the Apex
[4]
Court’s expression in Reshmakumari Vs.Madan Mohan , for the persons aged upto 15 years, the multiplier adopted is 15 prior to the injured. Though the child is three years it is within the multiplier rounded to assess the prospective earnings and as per the Apex
[5]
Court’s expression in Kishangopal Vs.Lala in the absence of proof of earnings the minimum to be taken at Rs.15,000/- under schedule II of the Act though read as Rs.30,000/- as increase in the cost of living index, then it comes to Rs.15,000/-x15=Rs.2,25,000/- and the claimants 70% disability therein comes to Rs.1,57,500/- further for loss of marriage prospects, amenities, requirement of artificial limb and its broken replacement and additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is required to be awarded, apart from it, for medical expenses and treatment, during the period of treatment loss of earnings of the parents in attending child and the future care required to be taken of the child hardly three years for some period, extra nourishment, transport charges; it requires to award Rs.75,000/-= Rs.3,32,500/- is just compensation to award by enhancing from 2,30,000/-. Coming to the rate of interest, though the interest at 7% per annum awarded by the Tribunal, from the settled
[6]
proposition of law in TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya , Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[7] and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, interest is awarded at 7½% per annum by modifying and enhancing from 7% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered.
Point No.2:
8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of compensation by enhancing the same from Rs.2,30,000/-(Rupees two lakh thirty thousand only) to Rs.3,32,500/-(Rupees three lakh thirty two thousand five hundred only) with interest at 7½% p.a. Rest of the terms of the award holds goods. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.
9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date: 23.04.2014
VVR
[1]
2011(12) scale 336
[2]
AIR 2009 SC 2506
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
2010 (4) ALD 531
2013 ACJ 1253
2014(1) SCC 244
(2005) 6 SCC 236
2009 ACJ 1298