AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is filed by the claimants questioning the order, dated 17.06.2016 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No.1754 of 2011, by which, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded for the injuries sustained by claimant No.1 (who died thereafter), in the motor vehicle accident against the claim of Rs.10 Lakhs.
Heard both sides and perused the record.
Appellant No.1/Claimant No.1 sustained grievous injuries in the accident occurred on 11.03.2011 as the car of the 1st respondent dashed his motorcycle from behind. Immediately after the accident, claimant No.1 was shifted to a hospital at Satara, thereafter to Pune and later to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where, his right leg below the knee was amputated. Thereafter, claimant No.1 had died on 30.06.2012 at his native place. The claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs. The trial Court, on the ground that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the car i.e. 1st respondent and that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself, has awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
Case of the appellants/ claimants is that the accident was caused due to the rash driving of the 1st respondent, however, as he himself had given complaint, the Police have registered case against the deceased saying that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself. Taking into consideration such record, the trial Court has erroneously granted Rs.50,000/- only, which is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company has contended that the deceased himself had caused the accident with his negligent driving on highway and he does not even possess valid driving license and it has also come on record in the evidence of RW-1 that the deceased had died not due to the injuries sustained in the accident but due to HIV disease. Accordingly, he contended that the trial Court has rightly granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
The factum of the accident is not denied by the respondents. Their only contention is that the deceased was not having driving license and that the final report of the Police disclose that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It is common knowledge that Police registers cases basing on the complaints before them. In this case, as the 1st respondent, who was driving the car, went to the police after the accident and given complaint, basing on such complaint, the Police registered the case saying that the deceased was responsible for the accident, which cannot be given much weightage while granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial legislation.
The claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month out of his hotel business. Except that bald contention, they have not submitted any proof to that effect. In this connection, a reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, wherein, the notional income of the deceased/coolie was taken as Rs.4,500/- per month even in the absence of evidence to that effect. Therefore, following the said judgment, the notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. Since the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of accident and was self-employed, future prospects @40% can be awarded as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others 2017 ACJ 2700. Thus, future prospects @40% would be Rs.1,800/-. If 50% of earnings is deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was not married, the net monthly earnings of deceased would come to Rs.3,150/-. As the deceased was aged 20 years at the time of accident, the multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Thus, loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,80,400/-. The claimant No.2 being the mother of deceased, is entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Apart from that, since the deceased had died during the pendency of the O.P., the claimants are entitled for funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Though the trial Court has granted interest @9% p.a., this Court is of the considered view that the reasonable interest of 7.5% per annum can be granted on the amount awarded.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the following heads:
1.
Loss of dependency
Rs.6,80,400-00
2.
Consortium
Rs.40,000-00
3.
Funeral expenses
Rs.10,000-00
Total
Rs.7,30,000-00
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed granting total compensation of Rs.7,30,400/- with costs and interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the claimants 2 and 3 are equally entitled to the above compensation. There is no modification with regard to the Advocate Fee of Rs.1,000/- granted by the trial Court.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.