Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insura,t .e Co. Ltd vs Sethit and awarded compensation under conventio ral heads and

Judgment

This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section l7l of M.V.Act, by the appellant/petitioner No.2 against the Aw.ar I and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tr bunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (FTC), Rangareddy Distri r, L.B.Nagar (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in O.p.N: 1,01 ol ZO0l, dated 14.03.2006, wherein claimants, who are the i arents of the deceased Sd.Jahangir, filed the claim petition, undt: Section 166 of M.V.Act, seeking compensation of Rs.l,00,00tr along with inlerest for the loss of life of the deceased, who rl ed in Motor Vehicle accident that occurred on 05.04.2001.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will t : hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the leamed Trib,_r ral.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appella:r s/petitioners filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V..a ct claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the death of Sd.Jat i ngir, who is \:. the son of the petitioners. Subsequerltly, the sectiorr of law was 2 NNRJ MACMA.No.559 of 2020 altered to Section 163-A of the M.V.Act alleging that on

05.04.2001 their son Sd.Jahangir, aged 14 years, who was doing vegetables business was going on Scooter from Kismathpur to Budvel Village and when he reached near the house of Kirana Laxmaiah, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 9W 1815 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, due to which, he fell down and sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. The Police registered a case against the driver of the RTC bus.

4. The contention of the petitioners was that the deceased Sd.Jahangir was aged about 14 years and he was hale and healthy and was eaming Rs. 1,500/- per month by doing vegetable business and he used to contribute the same to his family, but due to his untimely death, the petitioners lost their son and they were put to severe loss and hardship. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the accidental death of their deceased son under various heads. 3 NNRJ 1\ ACMA.No.559 of 2020

5. Before the learned Tribunal, the petition w,z r filed against respondent No.l (APSRTC) and subsequent., respondent Nos.2 and 3 were impleaded. Respondent No.3 renrrr ned ex_parte.

6. The respondent No. 1-Corporation in their coir rter denied the material allcgations in the petition and put the petit oners to stricl proof of the same and contended that the bus in quc:;r on belongs to one Y.Ram Reddy, which they were running on I ire basis and therefore, respondent No.2 is liable for third party cl rim as per the agreement between them and further contended th,r they are not aware of the criminal case and that the claim agairr t them is not maintainable and they are not liable to pay the conr rensation and prayed to dismiss the petition against the Corporation. The respondent No.2, who is the owner of the bus (c ime vehicle) bearing No.AP-9W-1815 denied the material allel: rtions in rhe petition and contended that though he is the owner ol the said bus, the said bus was hired by the RTC vide agreemer t valid from 07 .07 .2000 till 06.07.2003 and on the date of accider I the bus was in the custody of respondent No.l as per the agreem I lt and it was I 4 NNR,J MACMA.No.559 of 2020 intact and insured with respondent No.3 lnsurance Company, which was valid from 03.07.2000 to 02.07.2001 and the accident occurred on 05.04.2001 during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition 7 . Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunat framed the following issues, which reads as under: l. Wether the accident that took place on 05.04.2001 qt about I l:45 a.m. in front of house of Kirana kumaiah in Budvel Village, was due to raslt and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus (on hire) bearing No.AP 9 I'Y I I l5?

2. Whether compensation, the petitioners are entitled for if so, from whom and for what amount?

3. To what relieJ?

8. On behalf of claim petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as PWI and Exs.Al and A2 were marked. No oral or 5 I AC[4A.No.559 ot 2020 NNR,J documentary evidence was adduced on behalf o_- the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2. Having considered the ent re material on record, leanled Tribunal observed that originally tt : petition was flled under Section 166 of the M.V.Act and sut sequently, the Section of law was substituted by Section 163_z of M.V.Act and it is not necessary for the petitioners to pro." r the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offend r g vehicle but they have to prove only that the accident occurred a s a result of the crime vehicle being used, in order to prove :. e same, the petitioners relied on FIR, Inquest panchanama undr r Exs.Al and A2 respectively.

9. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners rv:re parents of the deceased, who were aged 40 and 35 years old r rspectively at the time of accident of the deceased, who was l4 yea s old and has not yet completed 15 years, taking into consideration , ,f that aspect, as per the provisions of Section 140 of the M.V.Act, t re petitioners were awarded Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability j ,rinciple and awarded Rs.70,000/- towards compensation, apart fr: n Rs.2,000/_ 6 NNR,J MACMA.No.559 of 2020 towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 1,500/- towards transport charges, in total Rs.76,0001 with proportionate costs together with interest @ 1 .5% per annum from the date of the petition.

10. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the leamed Tribunal, since petitioner No. 1 died, the present appeal is preferred by the appetlant/petitioner No.2 on the ground that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the multiplier to be adopted is'15'for the deceased, who was 14 years old and Rs.30,000i- per annum ought to have been considered as notional income of the deceased as per the decision rendered in Kishan Gopal vs Lala & anothert. It is further contended that the appellant/petitioner No.2, being mother of the deceased, and the father of the deceased, who died by the time of filing the appeal, are entitled for grant of parental/filial compensation of Rs.40,000/- each and Rs.50,000/- each towards love and aflection as per the decision rendered by the ' 20t3 act zs9+ sc 7 NNR,J \ ACMA.No.559 of 2020 Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insura,t .e Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram2 and, it is also cor I ;nded that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the decis , n rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.,td. v. prana! Sethit and awarded compensation under conventio ral heads and prayed this Coufl to allow the present appeal. 1 1. Fleard Sri T.Vishwarupa Chary, leame,l counsel for appellant/petitioner No.2 and Mr.p.Bhavana Rao, Ic rrned counsel for respondent No.3/United India Insurance CotnJ any Limited. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.l and . .

12. Having heard both the counsels on record, t re point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is that: l) Ilthether the petitioners/appellants are entitl<lc, for the compensation as prayed for, if so, to what amount)' Point No.l:

13. Admittedly, the respondents have not preferr3 1 any cross- appeal against the appeal of the appellant hereic it can be '1zota; 18 scc r:o ' zo tz16.y tzo sc 8 N NR,J MACMA.No.559 of 2020 presumed that the respondents have no grievance against the quantum of compensation awarded by the leamed Tribunal

14. The main grievance of the appeilant before this Court is that the learned Tribunal, having considered the fact that the deceased was 14 years at the time of accident, admittedly, he is non-earning member and a minor, in such case, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the leamed Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased basing on the Minimum Wages Act, considering the deceased as unskilled labour, he should have applied minimum wage policy to ascertain the income of the deceased and relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rushi @ Ruchi Thapa, through her father, Dhan Bahadur Thapa vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited and anothera wherein it was held that:

8. '...At this stage, we may note lhat this Court had occasion to consider a similar case involving a twelve-year-old child in Keial v. Jqgdish Chand and otherc2. In that case, the child hatl suffered 901% permanent disabiliE due to the accident. The argument before lhis Court tsus that as the child was iust twelve years of age, notional income of {15,000/- per annum should be adopted. n 202+ tawsuit 15C; 96+ -=a -\ 9 NNR,J v \CMA.No.559 oi 2020 rpted the ;fying the the High bour, i.e., te as lhe rc time of 'kman, as 'f Assam, basis, the However, this Court rejected this argument and aa mtnimum *,oges payable to a skilled. workman for qua,t notionol loss of earnings of the child. In the case on hqna Court adopted the ninimum wages payable to unskilled ,r {169 per do-y, but there is no jusfirtcafion for the sut appellant w,as a (2020) 4 SCC 413 school-going child ut t her accident, The minimum wages payable to a skillecl y,c per the Notifrcation dated 01.03-2013 of the Governmen, stood at {175 per day, which is more acceptoble. On that notional loss of incorue of the appellant would work out I ?5,2 5 0/- per mo th and the multiplier applicable would be 15, t,t ,tsidering her age sl the time of the accident. In effect, the notior, tl loss,of earnings y)ould work out to t9,4j,000/- (?5250X12x15) ^he High Court failed to considcr the loss of future prospects @r, .l % of the monthlt' sulsry, in terhts of lhe low laid down bv ,l is Court it Kaial (supra). Therefore, a further sum oI I ,78,000/- ({2I00Xl2xl5) would be payable to the appellant undet hat head The sum ol ?3 lttkh computed b! the High Court for pair, tufering and loss of amenities is just and warrants no interferencc. :imilarly, the compensation of {3 lakh for loss of marriage p,.r tpects is sufficient. However, though the High Court ( tlculated compensation for future medical trealment as {3 lakh, wt 're of the opinion that the same would be de/icient, given the na& 'e of the permanent dkability suffered by the appellant She t 'ould be entitled to {5 lakh under this head, as claimed by Lt ' in her computation statemenL Further, attendanl charges twuld 'lso have to be consklered as the appellant would be helplets h'ithout assistdnce. In K(rial (supra), this Court opined thqt the t ruhiplier method would be the most realistic und reasonable melht ' for this purpose. The monthly expense for one attendant rr'as qu,t 'tilied as {5,000/-. Arlopting the same, the appellant would be entit ed to {9 lakh under this head. Though, the claim for (13 ta*h ttt ards lhe expenses incurredfor lreatment and hospitalization is rein, ded, the fact remains that the appellant,s father coultl produce biltt only for ?84,771/-. llre are, therefore, not inclined to accept tl 's claim without prooJ In effect, the appellant k held entitl,.:, to the fo I I owi ng c o mpe nsa ti o n : 10 NNR,I MACMA.No.559 of 2020 -:+ 1-' : 'Loss of ti (rnco@ x ultrplien) Loss of fst!.e pcospacts r-_ (t5r 250x12 (.01of t5,250/-)'(12;1osr12xr5) > -..:i:f:" :'. :' atte^ddnt (hd.g€r. tor:l lfet iie ( (s,eoori2x15) .li Pain, suffe.ing and .Ioss of aaenities ., Loss of .marriage p-r!spe.ts - Fltu.e Pdi.al treetae.t . I :,asni i

7. fledi(al and hospitallration €xpenses - 1,'1e,s@ai -.: ' li. '...:. l ..:.Gii, ::,i :.:, glJ':!-'... . ".: ::,::l3a,o7, znl - l . I:: ."...,. . ii'li. t5 Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the said judgment cannot be applied for the present case, the said judgment is distinguishable for the reason that the set of fact which the said judgment are in respect of injuries sustained by the petitioner therein and further he also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (from Calcutta) (D.B.) New India Assurance Co Ltd vs [Jrmila Halders, wherein compensation of the deceased was enhanced considering the fact that the amendment under Section 163-,4. of M.V.Act, which came into effect by a Gazette Notification on 22"d May, 2018, would relate to an accident which had occuned prior to th laid date of judgment, law which t zO24 l,awsuitisCl tOO2 11 NNRJ \ 1CMA.No.559 of 2020 was amended would come into force prospectivr y, u.hich is a normal rulc of interpretation and there being r r retrospective indicated in the amendrncnt itselfl, the same has to tt construed in a harmonious manner giving effect to each and every r ord.

16. It is fi.rrther contended that the decision rc rdered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammed vs (Jnited )t dia Insurance Company Limited and others6, wherein it was hell t rat Civil Appeal No.l I128/2017:

18. In respect of the accident which had occurred on 2'.01,200g, the appellant-father was belore the MACT seeing <.o,t oensation for the death of his child, who wqs about eight montls whcn the accidenl occurred.

19. Having perused the record, il is noticed that the Mtlt T, taking into consideration the evidence awtilable before it, fu,r awarded lhe compensation of Rs.2,44,000/- wherea^s the High 'ourt has enhanced it to Rs.J,00,000/-

20. In a maner of thc present nqture considering li vagaries involved an appropriate compensation cannot be ir termined, since the parameters would not be definite. Be thal qs i may, the agony and the lrauma undergone by the psrents at, siblings cannot go unnoticed. Fuaher, in the presentfacls of the case, it is noled that the claimant himself was injured in the qt( dent and wws witness to the death of his child. Therefore, keepiry all these ospecls in view, we Jind it apprcpriate that in addil ,n to the compensation already awarded by lhe High Courl, il tt uld serw the ends of justice if a globat enhanced compen ation of u zo2i lict Egq L2 NNR,', MACMA.No.559 0f 2020 Rs.2,50,000/- is aw'arded in this appeal. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the parameters, agony, trauma undergone by the siblings in addition to the compensation already awarded by the High Court therein, further relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India in Kusmi Devi vs Md Kasim and anotherT, ln respect of thc death of a threc years otd child in the accident 'tthich occurred on 25.08.1994, the l[otors Accidents Claims Tribunal (For short 'MACT') through its Award dated t j.02.201 S had granterl the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @, 90% per annim- The High Court through its judgment doted t3.lZ.20lg has enhanced it to a sunt ofRs.5,00,000/- as a global conpensation. ln a mauer of the present nature v,here the regular palrameters of detennining lhe compensation cannol be considerei due to the uncertainties in life of a child and as held by this Court, the lump sum compensqlion is being awardcd. Wilhout prejudice to the conlentions all the parties and in the interest ofjustice, we deem it appropriate to grant a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/_ as global enhqncement which shall be deposited by the respondent No.2_ Insurance Conpany before the MACT concerned within a period of lhree weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, whereupon lhe amount shall be disbursed lo the claimanr. wherein it was held that besides awarding of the compensation of Rs.5,00,000i- the High Court therein considering uncertainties in the life of a child, a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was enhanced, which is already awarded by the High Court therein. He also relied on the decision of , the Hon,ble Supreme Court in 7 ZOZ3 LawSuit 1SC; l6a I I 13 N NR,J I4 CMA.No.559 of 2020 Kurvan Ansari vs Shyam Kishore Murmus and con ended that the Hon'ble Supremc Court, taking the income ar It ..25,000/- per annum as notional income of the deceased, who ,r rs aged about 7 years and applying multiplier '15', awarded I s.40,70,000/-. Leamed counsel for the appeltant contended that ir the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusr i Devi's case dated 15'h May,2O23, considered the death of a t ree years old child, wherein the income of the deceased cannot Ir assesscd and having awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by , .ay of global enhancement and contended that the judgment til s u,ithin four corn€rs of the judgment.

17. In view of the said reasons, considerinr the judicial pronouncements and the judgment of the Hon,bte I upreme ()ourt in Kusum Devi's Case, applying the said principles, , ris Court is of the opinion that the appellant/petitioner No.2 is i rtitled lor an enhanced compensation ofRs.6,00,000/- (Rupees si< Iakhs only) as \ against the amount, which was granted by the leamec Tribunal. E 120221 I Supre-e Court Cases 317 74 NNR.J MACMA-No.559 of 2020

18. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed. The appellant/petitioner No.2 is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) with interest at the rate @ 9 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent Nos.3 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeltant/petitioner No.2 shall pay the defened court fee within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such payment made, the appellant/petitioner No.2 is entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded without fumishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD ,- T SRINIVASA REDDY 3slsrnxr REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 -c dvD istrict, A.RU PA CH Motor Accide nts Claims Tribunal um-V Additional District The Chairman ' Rangared e, ( FTC), J udg to SR I. T. VISW 3. One CC to SRl. N SRUSHMAN REDDY (SC FOR GSRTC ZONE. 2. One CC 4. One 5. Two GE/PSL OPUC] IP. BH AVANA RAO Advocate IOPUCI L.B.Nagar ARY Advoca CC to SR CD CoPies telOPUC 1) Advocate HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.559 of 2020 ,-IAIE OF '(\ T, q EI O(\ d l\t r \t$ 6) * i lr 'E ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t ; . I I I .n-P?A -k" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD [34431 FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 559 OF 2020 Between: 1 2 Syed Osman, S/o.Syed Basha Niya, Aged about 58 years, Occ Mason (since died ) Smt Khaja Bee, W/o late Syed Osman, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Appareddipally village, [t/ahaboobnagar Drst-, Presently residingatsaroornagar'Hyderabad ....pETrroNERyAppELLANT-2 AND

1. The Depot Manager, A.P S.R T C., Rajenderanagar Depot, R.R. District. 4 Y. Ram Reddy, S/o. Not Known, Aged . Major, Occ. Business, R/o. H No 3-6- 1 26, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

5. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Chikkadpally Branch, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree daled 1410312006 passed in O.P No.707 of 2001 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, (FTC), Rangareddy District, L.B.Nagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the.judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRl. T VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate for the Appellants and SRl. N SRUSHMAN REDDY appeared for Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondent No.2, and SRl. P. BHAVANA RAO appeared for Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Crvil Miscellaneous Appe: be and is hereby is a llowed.

2. That the ap pe lla nt/petitioner No.2 be and is hereb z entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.6,00,0001 (Rupees Six lakhs or y) with interest at the rate @ 9olo p.a. from the date of petition till the date ol -.aIzation.

3. That the respondent Nos.3 be and is hereby di 3cted to deposit the compensation amount with interest and costs after I ving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period c,l two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. That the appellanUpetitioner No.2 be and is hereby ;hall pay the deferred court fee withrn two weeks from the date of receipt of I copy of this judgment.

5. That on such payment made by the respondent No.3 he appellanUpetitioner No.2 be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the entrre : r rount awarded without furnishing any security.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal lffrue Copyll To SD/. REDDY ASS ISTANT REGISTRAR "SRINIVASA \ ', ' sEciloN oFFlcER '\.

1. The chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cu r -V Additional District Judge, (FTC), Rangareddy District, L.B.Nagar.

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL Yk HIGH COURT DATED:251O712025 DECREE MACMA.No.559 of 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS el>a \^@(' $5*o t \"