Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 188 (AP)

S. Fathima v. Shaik Mohammed Ghouse

2020-03-04

BATTU DEVANAND

body2020
JUDGMENT : This Appeal arises under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and order, dated 13.10.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.460 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Court for Trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the Appeal. 2. As per the averments of the claim petition, on 01.04.2013, one Shaik Basha (who will be hereinafter referred to as “deceased”), while returning to the house on his bicycle at 8-15 p.m., when he reached the Welding shop, near YSR Statue Road, a Mini Lorry bearing No.A.P.21-X-1431 (which will be hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) proceeding from Betamcherla to Nandikotkur with high speed, came from opposite direction and hit the bicycle of the deceased and the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries and died instantaneously. At the time of accident, the deceased was 20 years old, working as a mason and used to earn Rs.5,000/-per month. The petitioners are the parents and sister of the deceased, who are the dependants. A case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No.38 of 2013. The 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurance company of the offending vehicle, both are liable to pay compensation. 3. The 1st respondent was set exparte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition and admitting the issuance of insurance policy which covered the risk of the deceased, subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The 2nd respondent contended that the petitioners have to prove the accident occurred in the manner stated by them that the offending vehicle involved in the accident, the age and income of the deceased and the manner of accident. The 2nd respondent further contended that the petitioners have to prove that the driver of the vehicle had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle had valid permit and fitness and that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The 2nd respondent further submits that the deceased himself fell down from the bicycle and died, but a false case is foisted against the driver of the offending vehicle. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is high and excessive. The 2nd respondent further submits that the deceased himself fell down from the bicycle and died, but a false case is foisted against the driver of the offending vehicle. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is high and excessive. Therefore, the 2nd respondent prays for dismissal of the petition with costs. 4. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased, was examined as PW.1. The eye witness to the accident was examined as PW.2. Exs.A.1 to A.4 were the documents marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, Ex.B.1, the attested copy of insurance policy, was marked. 5. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for 2nd respondent and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, partly allowed the claim application awarding total compensation of Rs.4,41,200/-against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition to till date of realization with proportionate costs by holding that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. 6. Dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.4,41,200/-awarded against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, the petitioner in O.P.filed the present appeal. 7. Heard, Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners and Sri Naresh Byrapuneni, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company. 8. Admittedly, there is no any dispute with regard to the negligence and liability aspects. The only issue to be considered in this appeal is whether the petitioners are entitled for any enhancement of compensation basing on the evidence available on record or not? 9. Admittedly, there is no evidence adduced by the petitioners with regard to the income and age of the deceased. Though, it was deposed by PW.1 that the deceased used to get Rs.500/-per day being a Mason, there is no any proof of income filed. In the absence of any income proof, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-per month and considered the age of the deceased as 25 years and applied multiplier “18” as per the decision in Sarla Verma’s case. The Tribunal also considered the future prospectus of the deceased at 30% as per the decision in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, 2012 SAR (Civil) 485. The Tribunal also considered the future prospectus of the deceased at 30% as per the decision in Santosh Devi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, 2012 SAR (Civil) 485. By adding the future prospectus the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,900/-per month. As the deceased was an unmarried person, 50% of the income is deducted towards his personal and living expenses of the deceased, if he would have been alive and applying appropriate multiplier of “18”, determined the compensation of Rs.4,21,200/-under the head loss of dependency. Rs.10,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/-towards funeral and other expenses were also awarded by the Tribunal. In total the Tribunal awarded compensation amount of Rs.4,41,200/-. 10. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel and on perusing the material available on record, in considered view of this Court, the Tribunal rightly considered the age, income and future prospectus of the deceased while determining the compensation. But as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) ACJ 2700 the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/-each head towards loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively. In the present case, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-each under these two heads. Hence, the petitioners are entitled Rs.15,000/-under the each head i.e., loss of estate and funeral expenses respectively. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.4,41,200/-awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,51,200/-. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.4,41,200/-which was awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,51,200/-. The enhanced compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) shall carry with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. However, the other directions of the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand closed.