Insurance ComPdng Limited v. Pranag Sethi and othersl' the

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI C.MOHAN PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No.'t: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI HARITNATH REDDY SOMA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT \ i I I I frii-:F sJ I I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.746 of 2OL9 JUDGMENT: lle'rrrr,- not sltlisfied wttl.t thc quanlurn rtf compctlsatiot.t rru':rrclt'r1 irt thi' orrlt r atlcl (lccrcc, r1:rted 27.11.2018 l):t:iscd in ( ) P \o l3l' ol 2() I I ort lhc file of thc Ch:rirmalr, Molor Accident (lLrrnrs Tribttnai (.lrrclgc, Frrlnily Court), Nalgoncla (lor short "the Tribunirl"l. rirc l)rcst'nt a1:pc:rl h;rs beet.r filed by the rr ppcll:rnt s't liiitrtirtr 1s. ). llricl lrct: ol lhc r';tse I)re that lhc appcllitl]ts, lr'ho ilre the I)illcnLs oI onc Chrtlla Ver.rk:rtcsh (hercinafter rcfcrrcd to as "the ricccasccl ) filed .).1).No.137 of20 I1 under Sections 166 and t4O o[ tlrc M()lor Vchit lcs Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.l0.0O,O()0 I irr tht'dcalh of thc cleci:ased, who died itr a tnotor vchjclc rrr-:ciclent llllL look plrtce ou t6 l0.201O. It is stAte(l lh'rt ()rl 1(r. 1O 2O I () s htlr' l ltt rlr:t't'ast:cl rvns proceeding on his motot cycle l-r-orr l{1'rl<:raba(l t() Sur}'ill)eL and when he reacht:d the outskirts ol' I)cddak:rparLhi Vill:rgc, Chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District, the driver of Ta[a Lrdi<:rr Car be:rring No.AP O9 TVA- 1463 drovr: Lhe sanc irr a rilsh ar)([ negligcrtt manner at high speed and dashetl the mot()r c\,clc o[ t Itt' deceascd from opposite direction. As it result o[ whir:lr, tlre cler:e:rsed susLait.tcd grievotts injuries and imrnediately 2 CVBR, J MACMA 146 ZOI9 he was shifted to KIMS, Narketpally and from there while he was being shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad for better trcatment he succumbed lo injuries on the way. It is also slated that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was u'orking as Medical Reprcsentative and earning Rs. 12,O47/- per month. C)n accolrnt of the death of the deceased, the appellants, who are his parenLs, lost lheir source of income. The 1"t respondent being the owner and the 2"d respondent being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severi:lly liable to pay compensalion.

3. Considering the claim of the appellants and Lhe countcr filecl by the 2"a respondent, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed rhe O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.8,73,000 l- with 6oh interest per annum frorn the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondents jointly and severally. Challenging thc same, the present appeal has been hled by the appellants seeking enhancement of the compensation.

4. I-Ieard Sri C.M.Prakash, Iearned counsel lor the appellants, learned Stancling Counsel for lhe 2"d respondent and pcrused the record.

5. I.earned Counsel for the appellants would submit that as per the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court rn Nrrtion.<r.l I I I I [" l CVtsR, J MACMA 146 2OI9 Insurance ComPdng Limited vs. Pranag Sethi and othersl' the appelLants arc also entitled to the future prospects and also Rs.8.+,i)oo/- {Rsr.7O,00O/- + 1O% enhancelnent for every three 1,e:rrs1 u trdr:r corvct.ttioniLl heads.

6. [,r--rtrncrl Silancling Counsc] iirr t-hc 2"d respondet.rt r'vould subrnil t fr:rL I [r-' colnpensation towards non-pecuniary darnages [-ras bectr rrghtll grar.rted by the Tritrunal ar.rcl the same need not be enhanr:cd.

7. Tlrc findirre of the Tribunal with rcgard to Lhc mauner in rvhich lhe accicl:trt took placc has become final as the same is not challcngt d b1' tt.c respondcnts Itrsofar as d-re quantum of compensation is concerned,

8. thottgh the aplellants claimecl that Lhe deceascd was earning Rs. 12,0.17/- pet month bv working as Medical Representative, the Tribr,rnal hacl fi tecl the itrcome of thc deceased at Rs 8,O00/- per rnontl'r. Admitt:r11y, the deceased rvas aged about 21 years at the lime of rhe accr(lent:rnd he is an:rble boclicd person' Considering the agc and av,rcation of the deccased and the evidence of P-W 3 coupled u'ith tre (r)llten[s of Exs AT and C1 the Tribunal has rightly hxcd tht: ir-rcome of the deceased at Rs.8,000/ - per month' However, the appcllants are entitlcd to addition of 4Oo/n Lowards | 2017 ACJ 2700 I I I I I I I i I I I I i ! t I ! I t 4 CVBR, J MACMA 746 20 I 9 'ql future prospects, as per the decision of tle Honble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. I1,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-). Fronr this, 50% is to be deducted towards personal and living cxpenscs o[ thc deceased sincc the deceased was a bachelc.rr. After deduct ing 50'% amount towards his pcrsonal and living expenses, the contribution of Lhe deceased to Lhe family would be Rs.5,6OO/- per month- Since Lhe age of the deceased was 21 years at the Lime o[ the accident, the appropriate multiplier is'18'as per Column 4 of the Schedule prescribed in Sarla Venna. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2. Aclopting multiplier 18, his total loss of earnings u,ould be Rs.5,600/- x 1.2 x 18 = Rs. 12,O9,6O0/-.

9. As regard.s cornpensaLion under conventional heads is concerned, it is apt to reler to the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Pranag Sethi's case (1 supra), wherein it was held as Ibllows: - "Reasonable frqures on corluentionol heads, namelg, loss of estate, loss o/ con-sortilrm and funerol expert.se-s should be Rs. l5,OOO/ , Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,OOO/ respecttuelg. The aforesaid etnounts should be enhanced at the rate of look in euerq three Aears." Taking into consideration the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.S4,OOO/- under the conventional heads to the appellants. , (2009) 6 SCC 121 \/ ) CVBR, J MACMA 746 2OI9 Thus, the app,:llalts are entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,93,600 / - iO. At this sta,1e. Lhe learned Standing Counsel for Lhe Insurance Company subnrirs that the appcllants harl claimcd only a sum of Rs.10.00,000/ - is comilcnsation, and [ht:relore, thc qu:rntum of compensatron to b<r au'ardcd cannot exceed the amount claimed. However, in vierl cf the judgmer.rts ol the Honble Supremc Court in Laxman @ Laxmd.n Mouryd Vs. Diuisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Compang Limited and q.notherJ anc| rn Nagappa Vs. Gurudagal Singha, ancl considerinB th.it the MoLor Vehiclcs Act is a beneficial legislalion intcntled to protect lhc interest of claimants, the Courts ar(' cmllowcred to arvard just and reasonable compensation cl cn ir.r excess of lhe amount claimed- Hence, the appcllants are cnLitled k-r a higher compensation than the amount originally clairnecl.

11. lnsof:rr as the ilrtcrcst componen( is t:oncerned, as per the decision of the llon'blc Allcx Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and otherss, the appellants are entitled to intcrest @7.5% per annum on [he compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of pctition lo till realization. The decision in Oriental r (2or r) ro scc 756 4 2ooi ACJ r2 (sc) s 2013 ACJ t4O3 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 6 CVBR, J MACMA 746 2OI9 Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Niru @ Niharika and others6 relied upon by the appellants is not applicable to the case on hand. IS

12. Accordingly, rhis appcal allowed. The compensation amounL au,arded b_v the Tribunal is hercby enhanccd from Rs.8,73,O00/- to Rs.12,93,600/ wirh interest aL 7 .Sok per annum from the date of petition to till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos. 1 ancl 2 jointly and severally. The compensation amount shall be apportioned itr the manner as ordered by the Tribunal. The appe ants sha be permitted to withdraw their respective share arnounts \\,ithout furnishing any security. Howcvcr, the appellants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on thc enhanced amount. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closcd. No order as to costs. A; 7.<t15 l-ot't Su5* 1lo ( SD/-M. JAWAHAR REDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu m udge, Family court-cum Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

2. One CC to SRI C.MOHAN PRAKASH Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI HARINATH REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KVR/nvb W HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.746 of 2019 \nE 5 14 a O rl..) 2 4 r,lAR 202i * ALLOWING THE MACMA WITH COSTS J\ n."{ Ytr