AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tirumala Devi Eada, J
This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 19.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2675 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) .
For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 22.05.2014 at about 2.30 p.m., the deceased was going as a pillion rider on a motor bike bearing No.AP-28-BS-9260 along with one Vivek Bharathi, while P. Sai Kumar was riding the said bike belonging to one Naveen Kumar/respondent No.1 from Ramanthapur towards Sri Ramana X Roads, Amberpet, Hyderabad and that the rider of the motor bike has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed in a zigzag fashion and that when they reached Agra Sweets Shop, Vinayak Nagar, Amberpet, an ambulance bearing No.AP-22-T-6818 which was proceeding in the same direction, dashed the motor bike of the deceased, due to which the deceased and others fell down and the deceased received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- by filing a petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act.
The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
Respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that initially the crime was registered, and charge sheet was filed by the police against the driver of the ambulance bearing No.AP-22-T-6818 for not holding valid driving license and as the vehicle was plying on the road without fitness certificate and permit but the petitioners failed to implead the owner of the ambulance bearing No.AP-22-T-6818 and insurer of the ambulance. Respondent No.2 contended that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the rider of the motor bike and that they are not liable to pay compensation.
Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-
“1. Whether the deceased-K.Hemanth Kumar @ Hemanth died on 22.05.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-BS-9260?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom?
3) To what relief?”
To prove their case, petitioners got examined PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,41,500/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.
Heard the submissions of Sri P. Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW1 and the documents under Exs.A1 to A5 and has failed to award more compensation. He contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any amounts towards future prospects and has failed to consider the other heads of compensation as per the guidelines laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others AIR 2017 SCC 5157. He further argued that they have stated before the Tribunal that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,300/- per month, but the Tribunal failed to consider the same. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation by considering the said guidelines.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has argued that the petition was filed under Section 163-A and thus, the quantum as projected in II Schedule has to be taken into consideration but not otherwise. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order and decree of the Tribunal.
In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-
Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?
Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference ?
To what relief ?
Point No.1:
a) The contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the Tribunal has failed to add 40% towards future prospects as per the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others. He further argued that the amounts awarded under conventional heads also is very less and thus, failed to apply the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cited decision and has prayed to enhance the compensation.
b) But the record reveals that the petition is filed under Section 163-A. Once the compensation is claimed under 163-A, it has to be awarded only as per the II Schedule. Since the accident pertains to the year 2014, the then II Schedule is applicable to the case on hand. As per II Schedule for age group between 15-20, the multiplier is ‘16’ and when the income is Rs.36,000/- per year, the compensation is calculated as Rs.6,84,000/-. The deduction as per
the II Schedule is 1/3rd, in consideration of the expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he
been alive, therefore, deducting 1/3rd out of the amount of Rs.6,84,000/-, comes to Rs.4,56,000/- (Rs.6,84,000/- x 1/3). Funeral Expenses of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of Estate have to be awarded. Since, the petitioner is the mother of the deceased, no compensation is awarded towards loss of consortium, as per the Schedule II. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.4,60,500/-.
c) It is noticed that the Tribunal went wrong in calculating the amount, thus, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to Rs.4,60,500/-, while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,41,500/-.
d) Though the appellant counsel contends that even if the application is filed under 163-A, the Court has to award future prospects. It is settled law that once the claim is made under 163-A, the compensation has to be awarded as per the II Schedule. The counsel has filed a decision of a coordinate bench of this High Court in Bandari Lavanya & 3 Others Vs. Md. Samiuddin & Another’s 2025 Supreme (Online) (TEL) 1846, wherein the claim petition was filed under 163-A and the Tribunal has granted compensation by taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month but a bench of this High Court has taken the monthly income of the deceased who was a daily labourer as Rs.4,500/- and went ahead in awarding compensation by adding future prospects and following the other guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others.
e) In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Allianz General Insruance Company Limited, Nizamabad Vs. M. Sarala MACMA.No.1374 of 2016, this High Court has held that since the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, no future prospects can be granted. In this case, the Court has referred to the decision of a Division Bench of Sikkim High Court in the case of “The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dilu Rani and Others MACMA.No.10 of 2018; wherein it was held that, “It needs no reiteration that the Supreme Court has clearly spelt out as evident from the decisions cited supra that compensation to be computed under Section 163 of the M.V. Act is on the structured formula as it is based on no fault liability. Once a person invokes the provisions of Section 163A, the question of inclusion of pecuniary compensation for non-tangibles and future prospects does not arise. Under Section 163-A future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim Petition under Section 163A of the M.V. Act is to be strictly computed on the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Act.”
f) In New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Ummannagari Akkamma & Others MACMA.No.706 of 2010, the petition was filed under Section 163-A, but the Tribunal has granted compensation by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.54,000/- per annum. It was held by a Bench of this High Court that if the application is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has no option except to determine the compensation taking the aid of Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Act. Even if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the deceased may earn more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, the Tribunal has to restrict the annual gross income of the deceased to Rs.40,000/- only. The High Court had discussed the decisions of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Hansrajbhai Vs. Kodala AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1832 and Deepal Girishbhai Soni Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385, and has allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and reduced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,19,000/- to Rs.4,09,505/-.
g) In Sgabana Begum & Others Vs. Burra Rajeshwar Goud and Others MACMA.No.335 of 2014, a Bench of this High Court has held that as per the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act, the maximum income of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.40,000/- and has applied the Second Schedule while granting the compensation.
h) In Bajaj Allianz General Vs. M. Sarala Nizamabad District MACMA.No.1374 of 2016, a Bench of this High Court has dealt with a petition under Section 163-A and it was held that as the petition is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the income of the deceased should be taken as Rs.40,000/- per annum and that no future prospects can be granted. By applying the decision of the Sikkim High Court in case of The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dilu Rai and Other MACMA.No.10 of 2018 dated 04.04.2022, to the said case, this High Court has reduced the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs.9,51,491/- to Rs.3,61,330/-.
i) In Raj Rani & Ors Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors AIR Online 2009 SC 231, (2009), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that for the purposes of computation of total amount of compensation under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, the future prospects may not be of much relevance, but in a case where the claim petition has been filed in terms of Section 166 of the Act, the same would be a relevant factor.
j) Thus, in view of the decisions cited above, it is held that the claimants are entitled to compensation under a structured formula basis as per II Schedule once the claim petition is filed under 163-A and that they are not entitled to future prospects or any other component apart from what is mentioned in II Schedule.
k) Though the counsel has relied upon a decision of this High Court in Bandari Lavanya & 3 Others Vs. Md. Samiuddin & Another 2025 Supreme (Online) (TEL) 1846, in the said decision, the above cited case laws were not discussed, therefore, this Court is not inclined to follow the said decision.
l) Thus, in light of the above cited case laws, it is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,60,500/-.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:-
In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,60,500/- from that of Rs.4,41,500/- that is awarded by the Tribunal.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
POINT NO.4:
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 19.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2675 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,41,500/- to 4,60,500/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.