HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.173
OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
The Claimants 5 in number no other
than the wife, three minor children and father of the deceased by name
P.Sudhakar Goud, aged about 32 years as per the Ex.A.5 postmortem report in the
claim maintained under Section 166 of the M.V.Act (for short, ‘the Act’), for the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- against the
owner and Insurer of the crime vehicle TATA SUMO bearing No.AP09 X 2402 covered
by Ex.B.1 policy, since awarded by the tribunal of Rs.4,17,500/- with interest
at 7.5% p.a. in O.P.No.1811 of 2003 on
the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-IV
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge,
Hyderabad, (for short, ‘Tribunal’), by its award dated
28.07.2006, preferred the appeal with the contentions in the grounds of appeal
that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is utterly low and the multiplier
applied is wrong and the compensation awarded is without appreciating the
evidence on record properly and hence, to allow the appeal by setting aside the
award by granting the compensation as prayed for. The learned counsel for the
appellants reiterated the same in the course of the hearing.
2. Whereas, it is the contention of the
2nd respondent-Insurer (from the 1st respondent even
remained ex-parte before the tribunal did not choose to contest and thereby taken
as heard to decide on merits) that the award of the tribunal holds good and for
this Court while sitting in the appeal there is nothing to interfere and hence
to dismiss the appeal.
3.
Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as
arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
4). Now
the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1.
Whether
the compensation awarded by the tribunal in the O.P.No.1811 of 2003 dated 28.07.2006
is utterly low and unjust and requires interference by this Court while sitting
in appeal and if so, with what compensation, with what rate of interest and
with what observations?
2. To what
result?
Point No.1:
5.
There is no dispute on the manner of accident or for the liability of the
Insurer to cover the risk indemnifying the owner of the crime vehicle but for quantum.
Now coming to the quantum, the tribunal has estimated earnings of the deceased
at Rs.3,000/- per month not believing the so called avocation of the deceased
as toddy tapper, for the certificate issued by the so called President of the
Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society has no basis.
Even taken as a daily wage earner with no fixed avocation or regular
assurance of work, as per the expression of Apex Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of
Bihar[1] it can reasonably be estimated at
Rs.3,000/- p.m. Since the accident taken place 2
years after the above expression, it can
be taken at Rs.3,200/-p.m. The claimants are 5 in number. As per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2],
if 1/4th deducted towards personal expenses, it comes to
Rs.2400/-p.m. x 12 x 16(multiplier) is taken as per Sarla Verma(supra) for a
person aged 32 years = Rs.4,60,000/- + Rs.1,65,000/-( Rs.1,00,000/- towards
consortium for the 1st petitioner-wife, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards care and
guidance to the three minor children) as per as per Rajesh v. Ranabir Singh[3],
in all it comes to Rs.6,25,800/- for which the claimants are entitled and
confirming the rate of interest at 7.5%p.a. as awarded by the tribunal.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
POINT No.-2:
6. In the
result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the quantum of compensation from Rs.4,17,500/-
to Rs. 6,25,800/- with
interest at 7½% p.a. from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit
with notice. The claimants are directed to pay deficit Court fee on Rs.26,000/-before
the tribunal. The respondents 1 and 2 (owner and Insurer of the crime vehicle),
are directed to deposit the amount enhanced herein(including the earlier amount
of Rs.4,17,500/- if not deposited) before the tribunal within one month from date
of receipt of the appeal judgment. In all the other respects the award of the
tribunal holds good. It is made clear that without payment of deficit Court
fee, the claimants are not entitled to execute the award before the tribunal. On
such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimants are permitted to withdraw
the same. There is no order as to costs in the appeal. Consequently,
miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 30.12.2014
VVR
