MACMA/3217/2012 of T. Nagabhushanamma , Sampoornamma.C, Vs M/s. Triplex Agencies, on 30 December 2014

JUDGMENT:

The claimants, who are no other than wife and minor son ofdeceased by name C.Bhasker, aged 30 years as per Ex.A3—postmortem report, in the claim O.P.No.540 of 2000 on the file of MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal–cum-III Additional District Judge (FTC),Nizamabad (for short, ’Tribunal’) filed under Section 166 M.V Act forRs.4,00,000/- since awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.2,12,000/- withinterest at 12% per annum. Impugning the same, preferred the appealwith the contentions of appeal against the owner and insurer forenhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition underSections 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. Heard learned counsel for appellants and Respondent No.1remained ex parte before the Tribunal not chosen to appear hencetaken as heard and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2.Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred toas arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in theappeal.

3. The contentions of the appellant in the grounds of appealthat the tribunal gravely erred in considering the earnings of thedeceased with prospective increase adopted the wrong multiplicandsince to enhance the compensation as prayed for. Learned counselfor the appellant reiterated the same.

4. Whereas it is the contention of counsel for the respondentNo.2 that the award of the Tribunal holds good this Court while sittingin appeal there is nothing to interfere but for to reduce the rate ofinterest 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum, which is exorbitant andexcessive, hence to dismiss the appeal in other respects and alsobrought to the notice of the Court the appeal is filed condoning the delay of four years and the Court in allowing the appeal condoning thedelay ordered that not entitled to interest during that interregnumperiod that to be taken care for also.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

1. Whether the quantum of compensation is utterly low, unjustand rate of interest is excessive, if so what is the justcompensation, with what rate of interest and with whatobservations?and rate of interest is excessive, if so what is the justcompensation, with what rate of interest and with whatobservations?

2. To what result?

Point No.1:

6. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accidentand liability of respondents 1 and 2 but for the quantum ofcompensation impugning the award of the Tribunal in M.V.O.P No.540of 2000, dated 01.10.2002. Coming to the earnings of the deceased,there is evidence of PW.1 no other than wife of the deceased, that thedeceased was earning Rs.2,000/- per month as cleaner. The Tribunalalso in para No.14 of the order observed that charge sheet also speaksthat the avocation of the deceased was cleaner of the lorry bearingNo.AP 26 U 414. Thus, as held by the Tribunal avocation of thedeceased as cleaner of the lorry was proved. The Tribunal, however,taken the earnings of the deceased as on the date of accident dated16.09.1996 at Rs.1500/- per month. The learned counsel for theappellant rightly pointed out the deceased was proved as cleaner andregarding the prospective earnings application to be made by drawingattention of the Apex Court’s expression in Rajesh vs Rajbir Singh[[1]],so 50% increase for the prospective increase for the age 30 - 40 yearsthat to be taken into consideration. If that is considered even theearnings of the deceased as claimed at Rs.2,000/- even taken theearnings of the deceased at Rs.1,500/-, 50% of prospective increaseof Rs.750/- thus, the total earnings comes to Rs.2,250/-, if 1/3[rd]deducted from it Rs.1500/-, from the age of the deceased above 30

years as per Ex.A3—post mortem report following the Sarla Verma vsDelhi Transport Corporation[[2]]and Rajesh (supra) the multiplierapplicable is ’16.5’, thus, the loss of dependency comes toRs.2,97,000/- (Rs.1,500/- X 12 X 16.5). Apart from it, an amount ofRs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeralexpenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towardscare and guidance of minor children, thus, in all it comes toRs.4,42,000/- which the claimants are entitled to. Though the claim aswell as the appeal is for only Rs.4 lakhs since it is the claimantsappeal, they are entitled to said Rs.4,40,000/- subject to payment ofdeficit Court fee of Rs.40,000/-.

7. Coming to the rate of interest at 12% per annum awardedby the Tribunal is excessive to reduce the rate of interest to 7.5% perannum as per TN Transport vs. Raja Pirya[[3]]and Rajesh (surpa). Sofar as the rate of interest concerned, from the date of claim petition tillthe date of trial Court judgment dated 01.10.2002 as awarded by thetrial Court, however, to reduce the rate of interest from 12% perannum to 7.5% per annum again from the date of appeal i.e.,01.11.2006 till realization.

Point No.2:

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing thecompensation from Rs.2,12,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twelve thousandonly) to Rs.4,40,000/- (Rupees four lakhs forty thousand only) subjectto payment of deficit Court fee under Rule 475 of A.P. M.V Rules, 1989before the Tribunal on the excess amount of Rs.40,000/- failing whichthe award of the trial Court is un-executable for the excess amount. The rate of interest reduced from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annumfrom the date of claim petition till the date of award of the Tribunal i.e.,01.10.2002 and from the date of appeal 01.11.2006 till realization or deposit with notice. In other respects, the award of the Tribunal holdsgood.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this appealshall stand closed.

Date:30-12-2014knl

_______________________

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.3217 OF 2012

knl

[1]2013 ACJ 1403[2]2009 ACJ 1298

[3]2005 (6) SCC 236

Date:30.12.2014