Bench Sr.No:-49 v. D V Jayaram & Ors.

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Claimants preferred present appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2015 in M.V.O.P. No.145 of 2013 passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

2. For convenience sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 2 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2103 of 2015

3. (a) The deceased was working as Clerk in Karnataka Bank Ltd. at Chintamani, Karnataka. He was aged 33 years and earning salary of ₹30,000/- per month. He boarded bus bearing Registration No.KA 01AA 3359 to deboard at Madanapalle. However, when the bus reached Jogidkothapalle, on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus, it lost control and turned turtle. The deceased received grievous injuries and succumbed on spot. Wife, two minor daughters and parents of deceased preferred the claim seeking compensation of ₹35,00,000/- with interest. (b) The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle in which the deceased was travelling. In arriving at said conclusion, Tribunal relied on the evidence of P.W.2 - eyewitness to the incident, besides Ex.A1 - FIR, Ex.A2 - charge sheet and Ex.A3 - inquest report. (c) The Tribunal further determined the income of deceased based on Ex.A8 - salary certificate and also evidence of P.W.3 - Manager of Karnataka Bank at Chintamani Branch. The salary of deceased was therefore assessed as ₹19,699/-, rounded off to ₹19,700/-. Future prospects were awarded @50%. 1/4th of the income was deducted towards personal expenses. Multiplier of 17 3 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2103 of 2015 was applied and thus, determined the loss of earnings as ₹60,28,200/-. The tribunal also awarded ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, ₹2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection for daughters and ₹2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection for parents and ₹5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal arrived at ₹65,28,700/- to be payable along with interest @7.5% per annum, however, restricted the compensation amount ₹35,00,000/- as claimed. (d) Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred.

4. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel appellants and Sri Ram Mohan Rao Kotha, learned counsel for 3rd respondent - Insurer.

5. Learned counsel for appellants mainly contended that though the Tribunal has determined the compensation of ₹65,48,700/- to be just, fair and reasonable, however, restricted the same to ₹35,00,000/- on the ground that the claim was preferred only for such amount, which is erroneous and contrary to law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh1. 1 (2003) 2 SCC 274 4 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2103 of 2015

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for insurer tried to support the impugned award. He further contended that Tribunal improperly calculated various components of compensation, which require to be re-worked. He has drawn our attention to one of the errors, such as, multiplying ₹19,700/- twice and arriving at ₹39,400/- towards income of deceased, rather than awarding 50% of ₹19,700/- i.e., ₹9,850/- as future prospects. Thus, it is urged to re-determine the compensation.

7. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made above and perused the record.

8. In Nagappa’s case1, the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that under Motor Vehicles Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of 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.

9. In view of the above ratio, the impugned award restricting the compensation to the amount claimed in original petition is clearly unsustainable. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is re-worked as under: 5 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2103 of 2015 Amount Awarded In accordance with ₹19,700/- ₹2,36,400/- 50% of ₹2,36,400/- = ₹1, 18,200/- ₹3,54,600/- - ₹88,650/- = ₹2,65,950/- ₹2,65,950/- x 16 = ₹42,55,200/- National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 ₹42,55,200/- ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) ₹18,150/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Compensation Heads Monthly Income Yearly Income Future Prospects (Age being 31 years) Deduction (1/4) Multiplier (16) Loss of Income of the deceased Loss of Estate Loss of Funeral Expenses National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Paras 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 United Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780 Para 37.12 Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699 Para 34 Sadhana Tomar & Ors. Ashok Khushwaha & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 554 Para 17 Loss of Consortium ₹48,400/- x 4 = ₹1,93,600/- (with 10% increase every 3 years from 2017) Total ₹44,85,100/- 6 HCJ & CGR, J MACMA No.2103 of 2015

10. In the result, this appeal is disposed of in the following terms: i) The claimants are granted revised compensation of ₹44,85,100/- as just and fair, with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till realization. ii) Out of the revised compensation amount, 1st party – wife is entitled for ₹19,22,100/- and 2nd and 3rd parties – daughters of the deceased, are entitled for ₹12,81,500/- each. iii) The Insurer is directed to deposit the amount as aforesaid with interest and costs, adjusting the amount already deposited/paid, if any, before the Tribunal within one month. iv) On such deposit being made, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective shares as per the apportionment made above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS