on 28.08.2011 at about 10.15 a.m., the deceased T.Kadirappa got into a tempo (Mahindra company) bearing No.AP 03 U 8810 with a load of vegetables. When the tempo reached E.B.Cross Road at about 01.15 a.m. on 29.08.2011 a car being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the tempo. Due to that impact, the tempo turned turtle, due to which the deceased fell out of the vehicle and received a head injury, apart from other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Adakkambanaru Government Hospital and he succumbed to injuries, while undergoing treatment in the said hospital.
The deceased T.Kadirappa was aged 45 years at the time of the accident, and he was an agriculturist and also doing vegetables business. He used to supply vegetables to Koyambedu Market, Chennai earning Rs.10,000/- per month.
trial court held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Hyundai Verna Car driver, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit against respondents 3 and 4 only, and the petition against the respondents No.1 and 2 is dismissed.
Court can award compensation beyond the claim, if it is a just compensation, subject to the payment of court fee. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be held as excessive amount, as contended by the appellant/Insurance Company. 35. Admittedly, the claimants did not file any appeal or cross objections in this case, questioning the order and decree passed by the Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others4, held as follows: 4 2004 (2) TN MAC 398 (SC) 2023:APHC:2778 BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016 Page 20 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023 "just compensation" would obviously mean what is fair, moderate and reasonable and awardable in the proved circumstances of a particular case and the expression "which appears to it to be just" vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of determining of compensation.” “In our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award 'Just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under subsection (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the M.V. Act.”
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRSENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 302 OF 2016
Between:
1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Rep by its Manager,
Karimnagar
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. Smt Thoti Savithramma W/o late T. Kadirappa Aged 51 years, Hindu
R/o UN°. 4-64, Barinepalle Village,
H/o Mangandlapalle Post, Punganur Mandal,
Chittoor District.
2. Sri Thoti Sreenivasulu S/o Late T. Kadirappa Aged 30 years, Hindu
R/o D.No. 4-64, Barinepalle Village,
H/o Mangandlapalle Post, Punganur Mandal,
Chittoor District.
3. Sri Thoti Govindu S/o Late T. Kadirappa
Aged 27 years, Hindu,
R/o D.No. 4-64, Barinepalle Village,
H/o Mangandlapalle Post,
Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4. M. Ramakrishna S/o M. Venkatramana Aged 43 years,
R/o Kothakuravapalle Village,
h/o Kannemadugu Post,
Thamballapalle Mandal, Chittoor District
5. The New India Assurance Companyb Limited, Rep by its Branch
Manager, Chittoor.
6. Smt J. Lakshmi W/o J. Linga rao
Aged 48 years, Car owner bearing No.
AP 15 AL 2222, D.No. 7-2-676,
Mankammathota, Karimnagar.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): V K NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondents: RAMINENI SATISH BABU
The Court made the following: ORDER
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 1 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
M.A.C.M.A.No.302 OF 2016
Between:
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. By its Manager, Karimnagar.
….Appellant
Versus
1. Smt.Thoti Savithramma, W/o.Late T.Kadirappa,
Hindu, Aged 51 years, R/o.D.No.4-64,
Barinepalle Village, H/o.Mangandlapalle Post,
Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. Sri.Thoti Sreenivasulu, S/o.Late T.Kadirappa,
Hindu, Aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.4-64,
Barinepalle Village, H/o.Mangandlapalle Post,
Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. Sri.Thoti Govindu, S/o.Late T.Kadirappa,
Hindu, Aged 27 years, R/o.D.No.4-64,
Barinepalle Village, H/o.Mangandlapalle Post,
Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4. M.Ramakrishna, S/o.M.Venkatramana,
Aged 43 years, R/o.Kothakuravapalle Village,
H/o.Kannemadugu Post, Thamballapalle Mandal,
Chittoor District.
5. The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rep. By its Branch Manager, Chittoor.
6. Smt.J.Lakshmi, W/o.J.Linga Rao,
Hindu, Aged 48 years, Owner of Car
Bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222, R/o.D.No.7-2-676,
Mankammathota, Karimnagar.
….Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 03.02.2023
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 2 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
____________________________
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 3 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.302 OF 2016
% 03.02.2023
# Between:
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. By its Manager, Karimnagar.
….Appellant
Versus
1. Smt.Thoti Savithramma, W/o.Late T.Kadirappa,
Hindu, Aged 51 years, R/o.D.No.4-64,
Barinepalle Village, H/o.Mangandlapalle Post,
Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. Sri.Thoti Sreenivasulu, S/o.Late T.Kadirappa,
Hindu, Aged 30 years, R/o.D.No.4-64,
Barinepalle Village, H/o.Mangandlapalle Post,
Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. Sri.Thoti Govindu, S/o.Late T.Kadirappa,
Hindu, Aged 27 years, R/o.D.No.4-64,
Barinepalle Village, H/o.Mangandlapalle Post,
Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District.
4. M.Ramakrishna, S/o.M.Venkatramana,
Aged 43 years, R/o.Kothakuravapalle Village,
H/o.Kannemadugu Post, Thamballapalle Mandal,
Chittoor District.
5. The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rep. By its Branch Manager, Chittoor.
6. Smt.J.Lakshmi, W/o.J.Linga Rao,
Hindu, Aged 48 years, Owner of Car
Bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222, R/o.D.No.7-2-676,
Mankammathota, Karimnagar.
….Respondents.
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 4 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Ramineni Satish Babu
^ Counsel for the
Respondents No.1 to 3 : Sri K.Subrahmanyam
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2009 ACJ 1298
2. (2017) 16 SCC 680
3. 2022 Livelaw (SC) 734
4. 2004 (2) TN MAC 398 (SC)
5. 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)
This Court made the following:
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 5 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.302 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company,
challenging the award dated 15.07.2015 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.186/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-II Addl.District Judge, Madanapalle, wherein the Tribunal while
partly allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.4,20,000/-
with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of
deposit to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of T.Kadirappa in a
motor vehicle accident.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties
before the tribunal.
3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an
application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the
Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the
death of T.Kadirappa, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, father
of petitioners No.2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
29.08.2011.
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 6 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
4. The facts would show that on 28.08.2011 at about 10.15 a.m.,
the deceased T.Kadirappa got into a tempo (Mahindra company)
bearing No.AP 03 U 8810 with a load of vegetables. When the tempo
reached E.B.Cross Road at about 01.15 a.m. on 29.08.2011 a car
being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the
tempo. Due to that impact, the tempo turned turtle, due to which the
deceased fell out of the vehicle and received a head injury, apart from
other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Adakkambanaru
Government Hospital and he succumbed to injuries, while undergoing
treatment in the said hospital.
The deceased T.Kadirappa was aged 45 years at the time of the
accident, and he was an agriculturist and also doing vegetables
business. He used to supply vegetables to Koyambedu Market,
Chennai earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In this connection, a case
was registered by SHO, Tirivallam Police Station, Vellore District,
Tamilnadu, in Cr.No.230/2011 U/s.337, 338, 279 and 304-A of Indian
Penal Code against the driver of the car bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222.
The 2nd respondent is the insurer of the tempo bearing No.AP 03 U
8810. The 1st respondent is the driver-cum-owner of the tempo bearing
No.AP 03 U 8810. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the car. The
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 7 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
4th respondent is insurer of car and all the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
5. Before, the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed a written statement
denying the material averments in the petition, and contended that on
29.08.2011 at about 01.15 a.m. when they reached E.B.Cross Road, a
car bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222 came on high speed without proper
caution, and to avoid hitting the car, the 1st respondent who was
driving the tempo applied sudden brake and due to it, the vehicle
turned turtle, and as a result, the deceased T.Kadirappa fell out of the
vehicle and sustained a head injury and other injuries on his body.
Immediately he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Adakkambanaru, where
he succumbed to the injuries. The accident occurred only due to the
negligence of the driver of car bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222.
6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement, denying the
material averments of the petition, contended that the petitioners did
not file any record in support of the contention of age, occupation and
monthly income of deceased T.Kadirappa. It is further contended that
the deceased T.Kadirappa is aged more than 55 years and was not
earning Rs.10,000/- per month. There was no rash and negligent
driving on part of the driver of the tempo bearing No.AP 03 U 8810,
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 8 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
and the said accident happened only due to the rash and negligent act
of the driver of the car bearing No.AP 15 AL 2222.
7. The 4th respondent/Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited, Karimnagar, filed a written statement resisting, while
traversing the material averments with regard to the proof of age,
avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash
and negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability to
pay compensation, and contended that the 1st respondent was not
holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident
and further, he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving
license. The 1st respondent handed over the possession of the vehicle
to the driver and he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of
the accident and thereby, he violated the terms and conditions of the
policy. The driver of the 3rd respondent was also not having a valid
driving license as on the date of the accident. The compensation and
interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive.
The 3rd respondent remained exparte.
8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 9 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
manner of the driving of the drivers of vehicle Mahindra Load
King bearing No.AP 08 U 8810 or Hyundai Verna Car bearing
No.AP 15 AL 2222 resulting in the death of deceased
T.Kadirappa?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If
so, by whom and to what amount?
3. To what relief?
9. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 and
2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the respondents,
R.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.
10. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1
and 2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-6, held that the accident took place
due to the rash and negligent driving of the Hyundai Verna Car driver,
and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2,
corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-6, awarded a compensation of
Rs.4,20,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till
the date of deposit against respondents 3 and 4 only, and the petition
against the respondents No.1 and 2 is dismissed.
11. This appeal is filed by Reliance General Insurance Company,
represented by its Manager against the impugned order and decree
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 10 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
dated 15.07.2015 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum-II Addl.District Judge, Madanapalle, awarding a sum of
Rs.4,20,000/- towards compensation U/s.166 of M.V.Act.
12. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased
T.Kadirappa is the husband of the 1st claimant, and father of
claimants No.2 and 3, and on 28.08.2011 at about 10.15 a.m. the
deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle bearing No.AP 03U 8810
along with load of vegetables transported by him, and when the said
vehicle reached a place near E.B.Cross Road, at about 01.00 a.m. on
29.08.2011, a car which was coming in the opposite direction, dashed
the tempo. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligence
driving of the car driver i.e., the 3rd respondent, and as a result, the
deceased fell out of the tempo vehicle and received a head injury, and
was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Adakkambanaru village, where he died
while undergoing treatment.
13. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the tempo, but not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the car, for which the appellant is the insurer.
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 11 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
14. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence on record, held that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the car, and as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained
a head injury and died while undergoing treatment.
15. The appellant/Insurance Company challenged the order of the
Tribunal, contending that the finding of the Tribunal was based on
surmises, and not on the evidence available in the case.
16. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was
working as an agriculturist and also cultivated vegetables and supplied
them in the vegetable market at Koyambedu, Chennai, Tamilnadu
State, and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and therefore, they
are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of dependency on
account of the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in
the motor accident.
17. The appellant/Insurance Company contended that the amount
claimed towards compensation is excessive, and the contention of the
claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month is not
supported by any evidence.
18. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence and other
material available on record, fixed the income of the deceased
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 12 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
notionally at Rs.5,000/- per month, and applied multiplier ‘11’ as per
Schedule-II, and awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards loss of
dependency, apart from Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the
wife of the deceased, and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, total
Rs.4,20,000/-.
19. The appellant/Insurance Company contended that the finding of
the Tribunal is not correct, and the Tribunal awarded the said amount
without any evidence.
20. The contention of the appellant is that the driver of the car was
not having a valid license at the time of the accident and therefore, the
appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the car i.e., the
3rd respondent in the case.
21. The learned counsel for the claimants in this appeal submitted
that the claimants are entitled to more compensation as just
compensation, but the Tribunal did not award just compensation and
therefore, this Court can enhance the compensation amount, which is
just compensation even in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company,
though the claimants did not file any appeal or cross objections and
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa
Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others.
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 13 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
22. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would
arise for consideration in the appeal are as under:
1. Whether the accident was not occurred due to rash or
negligence driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP 15 AL
2222?
2. Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal
is not a just compensation?
3. To what relief?
23. POINT No.1:
The contention of the claimants is that on 28.08.2011 at about
10.15 p.m. the deceased T.Kadirappa was travelling in a tempo motor
vehicle bearing No.AP 03 U 8810 along with a load of vegetables, and
when the vehicle reached a place near E.B.Cross Road, at about 01.15
a.m. on 29.08.2011, the car of the 3rd respondent came in the opposite
direction in a rash and negligence manner and dashed the tempo and
as a result, the deceased fell out of the tempo and sustained a head
injury and died in the hospital due to injuries sustained by him in the
said accident.
24. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 14 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
the tempo, but not due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of
the car.
25. The claimants in order to prove their case have examined one of
the persons travelling in the tempo at the time of the accident, as
P.W-2. P.W-2 evidence shows that he also sustained injuries in the
said accident, and that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the car, and police registered a case
against the driver of the car for the rash and negligent driving of the
car at the time of the accident. The appellant cross-examined P.W-2,
but could not elicit any material for coming to a conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the tempo, except that the deceased was sitting on top of the tempo
at the time of the accident. It is not the case of the appellant that the
deceased died as he was sitting on the top of the vehicle. It is the
contention of the appellant that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo and as a result, the
deceased fell down from the tempo.
26. The claimants filed copies of the FIR and the police report
(charge sheet) which were marked as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 respectively,
which disclose that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the car, and he was charged for the offence
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 15 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
punishable U/s.338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore,
Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 are corroborating the oral testimony of P.W-2.
P.W-1 is the wife of the deceased, and she is not an eye witness to the
accident.
27. The 1st respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver of the tempo
examined himself as R.W-1, and deposed that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, and that
the deceased was sitting on top of the said vehicle at the time of
accident, and due to the accident, he fell down and received a head
injury, and died on the way to the hospital. The appellant did not
choose to cross-examine R.W-1 to whittle down his evidence.
Therefore, the evidence of R.W-1 supports the version of P.W-2, and
the version found in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 documents. In that view of the
matter, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the tempo, is devoid of merits, and there are no grounds to interfere
with the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect. Accordingly, this point
is answered.
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 16 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
28. POINT No.2:
The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- towards just
compensation to the claimants. The claimants made the claim for
Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, on the ground that the deceased
was working as an agriculturist, and also doing vegetables business at
Koyambedu Vegetables Market, Chennai, Tamilnadu State, earning
Rs.10,000/- per month. The appellant/Insurance Company in its
counter filed before the Tribunal denied the claim, contending that it is
an excessive claim, and not based on evidence.
29. The claimants in support of their claim have examined the wife
of the deceased i.e., 1st claimant in the case as P.W-1. As per her
evidence, the deceased was working as an agriculturist, and also doing
vegetables business at Koyambedu Vegetables Market, Chennai, and
used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. The appellant as well as the
insurer of the tempo vehicle were cross-examined P.W-1 at length. In
the cross-examination of the appellant, P.W-1 admitted that as per
ration card issued to their family, the annual income of her deceased
husband was shown as Rs.13,000/- per annum. She denied the
suggestion of the appellant that her husband was not doing vegetables
business. The Tribunal upon considering the material available in the
case, held that as there is no clear and convincing evidence with
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 17 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
regard to the income of the deceased, fixed the income notionally at
Rs.5,000/- towards established income of the deceased.
30. The claimants filed bills covered by Ex.A-6 to say that the
deceased was supplying vegetables to the sellers at Koyambedu
Vegetables Market, Chennai, but the claimants did not examine any
witness to prove the said bills. In that view of the matter, this Court
do not find any ground to interfere with the income notionally fixed by
the Tribunal as Rs.5,000/- per month. The annual income of the
deceased would be Rs.5,000 x 12 = Rs.60,000/-. The deceased
T.Kaidrappa is having 3 dependants and therefore, 1/3 of income has
to be deducted towards his personal expenses, which would be
Rs.60,000 – 20,000 = Rs.40,000/-.
31. As per Ex.A-2 death certificate and Ex.A-3 post mortem report,
the age of deceased was shown as 50 years, though the claimants
contended that the deceased was aged about 45 years. Therefore, the
Tribunal considered the age of deceased as 50 years at the time of
death. As per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and
another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others1, the
multiplier to be applied is ‘11’, but the Tribunal applied ‘10’, by
1
2009 ACJ 1298
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 18 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
committing mathematical error and awarded Rs.4,00,000/- only
towards loss of dependency. Therefore, the loss of dependency would
be Rs.40,000 x 11 = Rs.4,40,000/-.
32. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
consortium for the death of deceased to the 1st claimant, who is the
wife of deceased. Claimants No.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased,
and they are majors at the time of the accident. Therefore, in view of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi2, the claimants are
entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, which
comes to Rs.40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 = Rs.70,000/-. Hence, the total
compensation entitled by the claimants is Rs.4,40,000 + 70,000 =
Rs.5,10,000/-. Therefore, the just compensation entitled by the
claimants is Rs.5,10,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,20,000/-
only.
33. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others
Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and others3, held that in the matter of
2
(2017) 16 SCC 680
3
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 19 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded
despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim
petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in
the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to
be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount
and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though
the claimant sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being
valued at lesser value for Rs.5,00,000/-, the amount actually due and
payable is to be awarded is Rs.5,10,000/-.
34. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the
Court can award compensation beyond the claim, if it is a just
compensation, subject to the payment of court fee. In that view of the
matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be held as
excessive amount, as contended by the appellant/Insurance Company.
35. Admittedly, the claimants did not file any appeal or cross
objections in this case, questioning the order and decree passed by the
Tribunal for enhancement of compensation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others4, held as
follows:
4
2004 (2) TN MAC 398 (SC)
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 20 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
"just compensation" would obviously mean what is fair, moderate
and reasonable and awardable in the proved circumstances of a
particular case and the expression "which appears to it to be just"
vests a wide discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of
determining of compensation.”
“In our view, under the M.V. Act, there is no restriction that
Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the
claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/Court is to award
'Just' compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence
produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of
claim becoming time barred or it cannot be contended that by
enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is
also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section
166, even report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under subsection (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for
compensation under the M.V. Act.”
36. The High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.Chitra
and others held at para 20 as follows:
“Though the appeal has been preferred by the insurance company
against the negligence aspect, by considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and appreciating the same in toto, this
Court while confirming the negligence aspect as reached by the
Tribunal, re-appreciating the evidence invoking Order 41 Rule 33
of CPC and Section 151 of CPC and Article 227 of Constitution of
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 21 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
India, has enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.17,60,400/-.
The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent in nature
and what is required to be awarded is just and reasonable
compensation. Therefore, even in the absence of appeal/crossappeal by the claimants, this Court has got power and jurisdiction
to enhance the compensation, which has been recognised by the
Honourable Supreme court in Nagappa V. Gurdayal Singh
reported in 2004 (2) TN MAC 398 (SC). Therefore, in an endevour
to do complete justice, this Court has enhanced the
compensation.”
In that view of the matter, it is clear that High Court can enhance the
compensation, which is just, even though the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company.
37. The claimants are entitled to interest on Rs.5,10,000/-
reasonable as per section 174 of M.V.Act. This Court is of the opinion
that interest can be awarded @ 7.5% p.a. on the compensation
amount, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, in view of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal5. Accordingly, this point is
answered.
5
2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 22 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
38. POINT No.3: To what relief?
In the light of the findings on points No.1 and 2, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the order and decree passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be modified partly, enhancing the compensation
amount to Rs 5,10,000/- from Rs.4,20,000/-.
39. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. But while dismissing the
appeal, in view of the above findings regarding enhancement of
compensation, the order of the tribunal is modified partly, as under:
A. The claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,10,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs, and Ten Thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% p.a.
from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of
Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Twenty Thousand only). The
respondents 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount. The 4th respondent/Insurance Company shall
deposit the entire compensation amount of Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs and Ten Thousand only), along with the accrued interest
thereon, within one month from the date of judgment.
B. In the event of the 4th respondent/Insurance Company
already depositing some amount, the said amount has to be excluded,
and the balance amount shall be deposited within one month from the
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 23 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
date of judgment. On such deposit, the 1st claimant being the wife of
the deceased is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,70,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs and Seventy Thousand only) along with accrued
interest thereon. Claimants No.2 and 3 being children of the deceased
are permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Thousand only) each, along with the accrued interest thereon. The
claimants are directed to pay the required court fee before the
Tribunal, as per Rule 475(2) of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, within one month
from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment.
40. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous
applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J
03.02.2023
psk
2023:APHC:2778
BVLNC,J MACMA 302 of 2016
Page 24 of 24 Dt: 03.02.2023
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.302 OF 2016
Note: Mark L.R.Copy
psk
3
rd February, 2023
psk
2023:APHC:2778
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.