HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.67
OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
The sole
claimant no other than the wife of the deceased K.Venkateshwarlu, one of the
passengers of the crime jeep bearing No.AAD 4356 insured with the 2nd respondent
covered by the Ex.B.1 standard package policy, (if it is not a goods vehicle
but a passenger vehicle and the policy is a standard policy as per IRDA regulations, dated 16.11.2009 to
make liable the insurer to the extent of seating capacity), having been
aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the III Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Warangal (for short,
‘Tribunal’) in O.P.No.66 of 2004 dated 06.10.2006, awarding compensation of
Rs.2,75,900/-(Rupees two lakhs seventy five thousand and nine hundred only) as
against the claim of Rs.3,75,000/-(Rupees three lakhs seventy five thousand
only), filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), filed this
appeal with the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the compensation awarded
by the tribunal is utterly low and
unjust, that the tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased underwent
several operations and ultimately led to amputation of his right leg and then
died and hence entitled to the entire claim, that the tribunal ought to have
seen that travelling of excess passengers cannot be a ground for dismissal of
claim petition against the insurer in the absence of any material that the
vehicle is used being transport vehicle, that the tribunal erred in observing
that the owner has violated the condition of policy and therefore the 2nd
respondent is not liable for payment of compensation, when it is not
specifically pleaded and proved by the 2nd respondent; hence to set
aside the award and grant compensation as prayed for.
2.
Whereas, it is the contention of the learned standing counsel for the Insurer-2nd
respondent of the claim petition as well as the appeal that for this Court
while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere with the award of the
tribunal, 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 is unjust and utterly low and requires
interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so
with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of
interest?
2. To what result?
POINT No-1:
5. The manner of the
accident itself speaks that it is the outcome of rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the crime jeep of the 1st respondent insured with the
2nd respondent-insurer under Ex.B.1 standard package policy and the
deceased, one of the inmates of the crime jeep, sustained injuries and even
after amputation of right leg upto knee level for the fracture of femur and out
of the multiple injuries, he could not survive and succumbed within the two
months on 15.08.2002 after occurrence dated 02.06.2002. The evidence of the P.W.4 doctor N.Srinivasa
Reddy substantiates the same of the deceased admitted as in- patient in the
hospital with injuries and since his
condition was critical and survival chances were very remote, the deceased was
discharged on 15.08.2002 with no further hope even suggested to take to
Hyderabad for any little chance for better treatment. P.W.1’s evidence also supports the same so
also that of P.Ws. 2 and 3 the eye witnesses to the occurrence. In view of the
above factual matrix and coming to the quantum of compensation the claim
petitioners entitled is concerned, the age of the deceased as per the Ex.A.2
wound certificate and the claim petition averments was more than 50 years, for
a person aged between 51 to 55 years, the multiplier 11 is applicable as per the
Apex Court’s expressions in Sarla
Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation[1] and coming to the earnings of the deceased is concerned, the deceased was a
toddy topper and there is no particular proof of his income, but as per the guidelines in Latha
Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar[2]
that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably
estimated at Rs.3,000/- p.m. for any non-earning member and even for housewife
as domestic contribution. The
accident dated 02.06.2002 occurred after one year of above expression, his
earnings are estimated at Rs.3,100/- per month and if taken Rs.3,200/- p.m., if
half deducted towards personal expenses as his wife sole claimant is the only
dependent, with no other dependants, it is Rs.1600/-x12x11(multiplier)=Rs.2,11,200/-
+ Rs.1,35,000/-(Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1st
claimant-wife, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards
loss of estate) it comes to Rs.3,46,200/- and towards medical expenses,
treatment, attendant charges and transport charges etc., in all Rs.30,000/- is
awarded, in all comes to Rs.3,76,200/- for which the claimant entitled is the
just. Hence, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,75,000/- as claimed for, confirming
the rate of interest at 7.5% p.a. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
POINT No-2:
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing
the compensation from Rs.2,75,900/- to Rs.3,75,000/- confirming the rate of
interest at 7.5% p.a. from date of the claim petition till realization/ deposit
with notice. Rest of the terms of the award holds good. The 1st respondent is directed to
deposit the amount within one month from today and on such deposit, the 1st
petitioner of the claim petition-appellant is entitled 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: 17.12.2014
Vvr
