1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad in O.P.No.795 of 2009, dated 15.05.2012.

2. Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence he is not a necessary party to the Appeal.

4. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is the father, appellant No.2 – petitioner No.2 is the mother and appellants Nos.3 and 4 – petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased Cheelapally Venkaiah.

5.1 Appellants – petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 (1)(c) of MV Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing petition till realization of full amount on account of the death of Cheelapally Venkaiah, who died in the accident.

               5.2 On 14.03.2009 Cheelapally Venkaiah was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-23-V-2931 from Bachepally village to Munigepally village, when the auto reached the outskirts of the Nizampet village at about 01.30 p.m., a tractor bearing No.AP-23-W-7463 along with trailer bearing No.AP-23-W-7464 driven by its driver came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the auto and caused the accident. In the said accident, Cheelapally Venkaiah sustained injuries on his chest, hands and waist, was shifted to Government Hospital, Narayankhed and he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. On the date of accident deceased Cheelapally Venkaiah was aged about 25 years, was doing agriculture and Hamali and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the accident, appellants – petitioners have lost their dependency, family income and prayed to allow the O.P.

6.1 Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

               6.2 Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied age, income, profession and the accident. Further contended that respondent No.1 in collusion with the appellants – petitioners has filed the O.P., burden lies on the appellants - petitioners to prove that the tractor was driven by the driver by possessing valid driving licence and the liability of the insurance company is limited subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of M.V.Act and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

               1) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.AP-23-W-7463 by its driver?

               2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what just amount and against whom?

               3) To what relief?

8. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, examined PW2 – Padma Ravinder, PW3 – L.Govind and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Respondent No.2 got examined its Senior Assistant (Legal) as RW (2015 (4) ALD 585 (LB)) and got marked Ex.B1 – copy of insurance policy.

9. The learned Tribunal after going through the evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the O.P and awarded compensation of Rs.2,85,800/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 24.09.2009 till the date of payment holding that respondent No.2 to pay the compensation and then recover the same from respondent No.1.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of the appellants in proper perspective, failed to see that the amount claimed by the appellants is reasonable and was rigid in granting amounts though motor vehicle act is a beneficial legislature. The Tribunal failed to see that the appellants – petitioners are agricultural labourer who needs physical fitness in all aspects and failed to award amount on loss of future earnings. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decision in the case of Adam Indur Muttemma and others Vs. Rathod Reddia and others1 and prayed to allow the appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case, rightly awarded just compensation, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed calculation memo in support of his contentions.

13. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material.

14. Now the points for consideration are:

               (i) Whether the appellants – petitioners were awarded just compensation, if so?

               (ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.795 of 2009, dated 15.05.2012 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

15. Appellants - petitioners have challenged the quantum in the appeal.

16. In Adam Indur Muttemma1 (LB) The High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh At Hyderabad, observed that ‘in appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record, if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is it should be just compensation i.e., to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable, from the evidence’.

17.1 It is the evidence of the appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 [PW1] that the deceased used to work as Hamali, doing agriculture work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

               17.2 In his cross – examination he denied the suggestion that the deceased was not earning Rs.10,000/- per month and Ex.A6 – income certificate is brought into existence in order to claim more compensation.

18.1 PW3 – L.Govind, Tahsildar, Kalher Mandal, deposed that he is the Tahsildar of Kalher Mandal since 26.11.2009 and Munigepally Village is in Kalher Mandal. Chelapally Balaiah R/o. Munigepally village submitted an application in the office for issuance of income certificate of his son viz., Cheelapally Venkaiah. On receipt of it VRO, Munigepally and Revenue Inspector have enquired about the avocation and income of Ch.Venkaiah and basing on the strength of the certification made by VRO and Revenue Inspector he issued Ex.A6 – income certificate of Ch.Venkaiah with C/No.1648/2010 dated 03.06.2010 stating that Ch.Venkaiah was working as a Hamali and his annual income was Rs.1,00,000/- and Ex.A6 bears a signature and office seal.

               18.2 In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he is not competent to issue income certificate and that Ex.A6 is an incorrect document.

19. It is mentioned in the claim petition that the monthly income of the deceased Ch.Venkaiah is Rs.10,000/- by way of agriculture and Hamali. Though PW3 is examined with regard to Ex.A6 – income certificate, as the accident has taken place on 14.03.2009 and as an agriculture and hamali the deceased CH.Venkaiah might have been earning Rs.7,000/- per month. Hence the same is taken for calculating the amount.

20. The age of the deceased is shown as 25 years in the claim petition, so also in Ex.A2 – C.C. of inquest panchanama and in Ex.A3 – C.C. of PME report. Therefore, the age of the deceased is taken as 25 years.

21. The learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the mother of the deceased (Ch.Moghulamma) as 45 years and applied the multiplier ‘13’, which is incorrect. As per Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation ((2009) 6 SCC 121), as the deceased is a bachelor, personal expenses of the deceased to be deducted at 50% and age of the deceased is taken at 25 years, he falls in the age group of 21 – 25 years and appropriate multiplier is ‘18’.

22. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards consortium, future prospects and has awarded less amount towards funeral expenses. As per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi ((2017) 16 SCC 680), appellants are entitled for future prospects at the rate of 40% as the deceased was below 40 years, they are also entitled for consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate.

23. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under.

               

24. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9% as per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and others (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683). Hence points are answered accordingly.

25. In the result, MACMA.No.879 of 2013 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under:

               a) The impugned award dated 15.05.2012, passed in O.P.No.795 of 2009, stands modified.

               b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.2,85,800/- is enhanced to Rs.12,48,400/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment.

               c) Appellants – petitioners are directed to pay Court fee on the enhanced amount.

               d) Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then recover the same from the respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle.

               e) Appellant Nos.1 and 2 – petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for Rs.4,99,360/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amounts with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.

               f) Appellant Nos.3 and 4 – petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are entitled for Rs.1,24,840/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amounts with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.

Interim orders if any stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application/s if any shall stand closed.