1. Ghousiya Begum v. 1. Qamaruddin and Another

Judgment

Dissatisfied with the quantum of cornpehsation awarded by the k:arned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-ll A<lditional District Judge (FTC), at Nizamabad (for short, 'the TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.336 of 2013 by order and decree dated 1{).1 1 .2020, the appellants/claimants have Iiled the present e-ppeal seeking enhancement of corrrpensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred ;es they were arrayed before the Tribunal. ,: The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,OO,OOO/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of the deceased viz., "Abdul llqjjad". Petitioner No.l is the mother of the deceased, Petitiont:r Nos.2 and 3 are sisters of the deceased. The reason assigne<l by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 21.(18.2012, the deceased along with his brother-in-law, namely, Shaik AIi and his friends, namely, Shaik Afzal and Qayyanr went to Dharmabad village by train to greet their relative,s on the eve of Ramzan festival. On the same day i.e., 2 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 of 2O2L 2I.O8.2O12, they were returning in auto trolley bearing No' A.p.25.V.2126 to Nizamabad; while so, when the said auto trolley reached the outskirts of Yemcha village, at about 17:00 hours, the driver of the said auto trolley drovg it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle; as a result, the said auto trolley turned turtle, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to said injuries while undergoing treatment in Govt' Hospital, Nizamabad, on the same daY.

4.Basedonacomplaint,Police-NavipetP.S.,Nizamabad District, registered First Information Report No. l4ol2o12 under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal code, 1860 against flriver of the crime vehicle i.e., auto trolley bearing No.AP.25 .v.2126 and after investigation, filed charge sheet.

5. According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of accident and was working as mason and used to earn Rs.15,000 l- per month. It was stated that the petitioners were solely dependant on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise in the said accid'ent, the family suffered a lot and lost a young earning family member, his love and affection and were left in misery. Therefore, the petitioners / / {) 3 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 of 2O2l as depenctants of the deceased, filed claim petition seeking compensaiion of Rs.8,00,OOOl- (Rupees eight lakhs only) against both respondents jointly and severally.

6. The respondent No.l remained ex parte.'The respondent No.2 Insu.rance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, &B€, avocation, earning capaciqr, negligence and involveme:nt of crime vehicle in the accident and called for strict proof of the same. It was contended that the driver of the said auto trolley was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and the said vehicle is a goods carrying vehicle and that the terms and condition of insurance policy were violated. Thereforr), on the above grounds the Insurance Company assailed its liabiliff to pay any compensation amount. It was further r:ontended that the compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the case.

7. Bzrsed on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following three issues. n Wlether on 21.O8.2012 at about 17:00 hours in tlrc shiuar of Yemcha uillage, accident occurred due to ra,sh and neghgent driuing of Auto trolley bearing No.AP.25.V.2126 bg its driuer? i : : 4 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 of 2O2l ii) Whether the Abdul Sajiad re@iued injuties in tlnt accident and died of tle injuies? iii) Whether ttte petitioners are entitled fo, compensation, If so, to what amount and from which respondent? iiil To what relieJ?

8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioner No.l got examined herself as P-W.1 aphrt from examining P.W.2 and relied upon documentary evidence under Exs.Al to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R-W.l and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.Bl to 84 and Exs.Xl and X2 were marked.

9. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition in favour of the petitioners by awarding Rs.6,65,OOO/- (Rupees six lakhs sixty five thousand only) with interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of tealization, holding respondent No.l liable for the same and respondent No.2 was exonerated from the liability. However, apptying the 'Pay and Recover'principle the respondent No.2 lnsurance Company was ordered. to deposit the compensation awarded initially and recover the salne from respondent {1 5 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 ot2O2l No.l/owrrer of the auto trolley. Aggrieved by the reduced quantum of compensation, the petitioners have preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 1O- Heilrd Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Company. The responde nt No.1 remained ex par7e. 1 1. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners is that though the petitioners proved their cas;e by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.Al to A7, the Tribunal without considering the sarne has erroneously awarded meager amount. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased realistically and on a higher :iide and ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation. On the above grounds prayed to allow the Appeal rrnd grant just and reasonable compensation.

12. Pzr contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurarrce Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and awarded just 6 GMM,J MACMA.No:34 of 2O2l and reasonable compensation and therefore interference of this Court is unwarranted.

13. Now the point for consideration is "Wlrctlrcr the impugned order and decree passed by the Tlibunal calts for interference by this Court? If so, wlrcther the appellants/petitioners are entitled fo' anA enhancement of co mP ens ation? " l4 Heard both sides and perused the entire record including the grounds of ApPeal.

15. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No. 2 have not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased. There is also no dispute with regard to the occurrence and the manner of the accident. The Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of PW- 1 (mother of the deceased) coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.Al (FIR), Ex.A2 (Charge Sheet) and Ex.A3 (lnquest Report) has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.

16. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the deceased was earning , 7 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 of 2O2L Rs.15,000/- per month as a mason, the Tribunal has considere<l the salary of the deceased as Rs.4,2O0/- per month and awar<led very meager amount towards compensation.

17. It is; an admitted fact that the petitioners have not placed on recorrl any evidence to establish that the deceased was earning Its15,00Ol- per month as mason. Though in Ex.A-S Salary Ct:rtificate, issued by the Labour Contract Co-Operative Society, Nizamabad, it is mentioned that the deceased was earning Its.3OO/- per day as a daily wage mason, however, no other evidence, either oral or documentary (other than Ex.AS salary certificate), was placed by the petitioners to establish that the decr:ased was working as a mason and used to earn Rs.15,0CtO/- per month. In the absence of any definite proof of income, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceaserl at Rs.4,2 OOI-. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for resfr6ndsn1 No.2-Insurance Company vehemently argued that th,: Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceaseC after considering the entire evidence adduced by the petition:rs and that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. In order to support his contention he placed reliance, on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Ra;mr;chrrndrappa a. Manage4 Rogal Siltndaro;m Alliqnce i\ : i i 8 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 of 2O2I (-l Insurance Contlra;ng Limltedl, wherein the Court held that in the absence of any specific evidence to prove the income of a deceased or injured, notional income of Rs.4,5OOl- per month could be taken as the basis for calculating compensation for daily wage laborers in motor accident claim cases-

18. Although, the petitioners submitted Ex.AS Salary Certificate, issued by the Labour Contract Co-Operative Society, Nizamabad to substantiate the income of the deceased; the said certificate cannot be considered as a valid Salary certificate, as the Labour Contract Co-Operative Societ5r, Nizamabad not being the employer of the deceased, is not a competent authority to grant such Salary Certificate. Further, neither the author of the s.alary certificate A-5 nor any authorized person from the co- operative societ5r was examined by the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.15,OO0/- per month, in the absence of any'supporting material, is unacceptable.

19. For the purpose of computation of income of a deceased or injured, where no evidence is available, applicable minimum wages for that class of person(s) may be considered. Reliance t 201 1(13) SCC 236 / / l\r 9 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 of 2O2l can be pkrced on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Cha;ndra Alto.s Cho;nda Cho;ndro;rann o. Mukesh Kumar Yadau,2 in support of the said proposition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case held that "when a salary certificate is not auailable, tle notification of minimum wages and a degree of approximation that is not entirely arbitrary shall be used to a.scertain the deceased's income". The Honble Supreme Court reiterated the said principle in the case of Manusha Sreekuntar a. tlnited Indla. Insurance Compang Limiteds, wherein [he Honble Supreme Court n-eld that "in motor accident claim ca.;es, the 'minimum wages notification' mag be utilized to ascertailt tFLe notional income of tle deeased." Therefore, considering the above decisions irl' the factual matrix in the ".ra present case, minimum wages notification notified by Andhra Pradesh Labour Department in the year 2012, can be considered. The Government notified the minimum wages for the workers engaged in the building operations or construction or maintenance of roads and building operations under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 vide G.O.Rt.No.169, LET & F (Lab-II) Departrnent, dated O5.O2.2O13. The minimum urages notified in the sairl G.O. for unskilled workers like MazAoor can be taken '1zozz1 r scc r98 '2022 S,lC Online SC 1441 q 10 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 ot2O2l t-, into consideration. As per the above said notification, the basic wage for unskilled labourer is Rs.5,668/- per month at the relevant time, when the accident occurred. Therefore, this Court is inclined to adopt the monthly wage of the deceased, in the class of an unskilled workmen @ Rs.5,6681- per month which in the opinion of this Court is just and reasonable.

20. Now coming to quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of accident, as evident from Ex.Al (FIR), Ex.A2 (Charge Sheet) and Ex.A3 (lnquest Report). As per the decision of the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Sarala Vermq. a. Delhi TYansport Corporation4, the Tribunal has rightly" taken the appropriate multiptier as "18', considering the age of the deceased.

21. tt is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of future prospects while calculating the compensation, taking into consideration the age of the deceased i.e., 19 years old at the time of accident (i.e., below 40 years) and the deceased being self employed and held that he is entitled for future prospects @ 4O%o as per the decision laid down in Natlonal Insutu;nce Compqng Limited a. kanag 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 / L7 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 of 2O2l Sethi and otlersF, which seems to be just and reasonable- Thus, the monthly income of the deceased with future prospects comes to Rs.7,935/- per month (Rs.5,668/- + Rs.2,267 l-1. Since, tht: deceased was a bachelot, 5Oo/o of his monthly income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and thereby the monl.hly income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to Rs.3,9681- (Rs.7,935/- minus Rs.3,968/-); annual income of the deceased based on the above computation comes trr Rs.47,616/- (Rs.3,968/- x 12 months). As stated supra, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is'18'. When ttre annual income of the deceased after deducting his persona expenses is multiplied with the relevant muttiplier, it comes to Rs.8,57,0881- (Rs.47,6161- x 18). Thus, the loss of dependr'ncy on account of sudden demise of the deceased is Rs.8,57,088/-.

22. T:re Tribunal awarded Rs.15,O00/- towards funeral expensos and Rs.15,O0O/- towards loss of estate. However, as per the principle laid down in Pranag Sethi's case (supra 5), the petitioners are entitled to a consolidated sum of Rs.77,0 OO l- under r:he conventional heads (Rs.7O,OO O l- + 1O7o enhancement thereon). Though the petitioners have claimed compensation of s 20t7 t,cJ 2700 I x I i I I I t' j i L2 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 of 2O2l 1\ Rs.S,OO,OOO/-, the Honourable Supreme Court in Chandrormolrll. Nanda a. Sarat Cho;ndra Swqin and' ornothers observed that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High court to award compensation more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.9,34,038/- (Rs.8,57,O88/- + Rs.77,0OO/-) against the claimed compensation of Rs.8,OO,00O/-.

23. It is to be seen that out of the initial compensation of Rs.6,65,O OO l-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,65,00O/- to petitioner No.1, who is mother of the deceased and Rs.1,5O,OOO/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the sisters of the deceased. The Tribunal further directed that out of the awarded sum, the petitioner No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.2,65,OO0/-. The balance of Rs. 1,O0,00o/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years and the sum awarded to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, should be kept as fixed deposit in any Nationalizrd bank till they attain the age of majority. It is pertinent to note that by this day the time frame of three years frxed by the Tribunal with regard to the deposit part of compensation amount in any nationalized bank has 6l2o24l10 S.C.R. 920 / 13 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 of 2O2l expired. And the claimant Nos.2 and 3 have already attained majority.

24. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned"order passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above observations.

25. In the result, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,65,0 OO I - to Rs.9,3 4,O881 -, which shall carry inl.erest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.2 being insurer of the crime vehicle shall deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then talre steps to recover the same from respondent No.1 i.e., owner cf the crime vehicle in accordance with law. on such deposit, the petitioner No.1 i.e., mother of the deceased is awardecl an amount of Rs.5,34,O88/- and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are awarded an amount of Rs.2,OO,0OO/- each. The petitioners are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them without furnishing any securit5r, subject to the payment of defic'it court-fee on the enhanced compensation, which is [ 3484 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTETVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN MoroR ACCIDENT clvtl MISCELLANEoUS AppEAL No: 34 oF 2021 Between

1. Ghousiya Beg.-um.wo Late Abdul sattar, Aged about 40 years, cast. Muslim, Occ. Housewife, Rlo. 7-14-SS711, Khoja Col6ny, Nizamabid.

2. Yasmlq EegyT, D/o. Late Abdul_satt9r, Aged about 23 years, cast. Muslim, Occ. Student, R/o. H.No.7-14-SST 11, Khoja-Colony, Nizaniabad.

3. shiren B9gu.m. D/o. late Abdul Qattar, aged about 21 years, cast. Muslim, Occ. Student, R/o. H.No.7-14 -SSl 11, Khojd' Colony, Nizamabad. (Petitioners 2 & 3 Being Minor Rep. their natural mother and guardian i.e., appellant No.1) ' ...Petitioners AND 1 2 Qqmaruddin and Aqother, s/o. wahiuddin, Aged about major, owner of Auto flblly bea.ring No.Ap-2S-v 2126, R/o. H.Nb.t:iq-agl, kh",;'Cofiy, - Nizambad. Reliance General lqsuralce. c.ompany Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Qranch Office, 2nd floor, Balaji Bhavah, H.No.1-1 -i2g', beside Kalika DeVi Kamaan, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad-503001 . _(lqt_qqpl4utq_Trolley.No.AP ?g U 2126 vide insurance poticy No. 1807712336000554 valid from 19t12t2011 to 18t12t2T12).' ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,2019 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.336 of 2013 dated.1911112120 bn the fite of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad. This appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeats the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Kuldeep Jadhav, Advocate Appellant and Sri l, I' i t] : : T4 GMM,J MACMA.No.34 of 2O2l /.1, , -i", beyond the amount claimed by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if ofly, pending shall stand closed To, SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR /,TRUE GOPY/ ON OFFICER

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad.

2. One CC to SRI KULDEEP JADHAV, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI V.SAWAM REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI M. ^ Two CD Copies KVRAIVB l-:,- i J HIGH COLIRT DATED:1210912025 1 HE S o C) 2 ? Jrll 21?6 JUDGMENT+DECREE -,-lr * MACMA.ltlo.34 of 2021 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 1 t b V.Satyam Reddy', Advocate, for the Respondent No.1, and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as fotlows:

1. That the l/otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed enhancing; the compensation from Rs.6,65,000/- to Rs.g,34,0gg/-,.

2. That the enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization 3 That the tespondent No.2 being insurer of the crime vehicle shall deposit the compensiltion amount one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then take steps to recover the same from respondent No.1 i.e., owner of 1:he crime vehicle in accordance with law.

4. The on s;uch deposit, the petitioner No.1 i.e., Mother of the deceased is awarded ;an amount of Rs.S,34,0881- and Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-each. 5 That the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them wittrout furnishing any security, subject to the payment of deficit court- fee on th,a enhanced compensation, which is beyond the amount claimed by the petiticrners.

6. That savel as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all othe,r respects: and

7. That ther,= be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motrlr Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad. 2. Two CD Oopies KVR/NIVB N/ / ,/ HIGH COT'RT DATED i1i210912025 DECREE MACMA.No.34 of 2021 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \ L