1. This Memorandum of Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), assailing the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal – cum - Principal District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No. 845 of 2012, dated 23.09.2015.
2. Appellant is respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the petitioners and respondent Nos.6 and 7 are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in MVOP.No.845 of 2012.
3. Notice got issued to respondent Nos.6 and 7 in the appeal are served, but none appeared for them.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant – respondent No.3 submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the name of the driver of the lorry was changed from Jadav Vijay to Maruthi Rathod. The owner of the lorry has surrendered Maruthi Rathod before the police. The police have colluded with the owner of the lorry and wrongly planted Maruthi Rathod as the driver of the lorry, which gives suspicion on which the claim ought to have been dismissed by the Tribunal. It is the statutory duty of the owner of the vehicle to see that the driver to whom the vehicle is entrusted holds an effective driving license to drive the vehicle. The learned Tribunal has also erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.11,760/- per month as a security guard which is on higher side and PW3 is not competent to depose the income of the deceased is Rs.11,760/-. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of both vehicles and the driver of the motorcycle did not control the vehicle as he was traveling on the newly formatted road, ought to have taken the evidence of RW1 and should have concluded that respondent Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners are not entitled for any compensation, erred in granting amounts under different heads, also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum instead of 6% per annum and prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned award.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners submits that learned Tribunal has failed to add future prospects, filial consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Counsel further submits that just compensation has to be awarded to the respondents Nos.1 to 5 – petitioners. In support of his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and others (2020 ACJ 2156 [Three Judge Bench]) and (ii) Janabai WD/O Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Others Vs. ICICI Lombord Insurance Company Limited ((2022) 10 SCC 512).
6. Now the points for consideration are:
i) Whether the Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the respondent Nos.1 to 5 – petitioners, if so?
ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court?
7. As per Ex.A1 - FIR the name of the driver is shown as Jadhav Vijay. On 29.04.2012 the owner of the lorry has produced Maruthi Rathod who was the driver of the crime vehicle before PS Kadam. PS Kadam has filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against Maruthi Rathod under Section 304(A) of IPC.
8. The eye witness to the accident is PW2 – Mohd. Yakub, he deposed the manner in which the accident has taken place.
9. Legal retainer of the appellant – respondent No.3 is examined as RW1 – M.Madhukar, his evidence is that the police in collusion with the owner of the crime vehicle changed the driver of the vehicle from Jadhav Vijay to Maruthi Rathod and there is no proper explanation in the charge sheet to change the driver of the crime vehicle. In his cross examination he stated that the report of the investigator is not filed in the Court, insurance policy [Ex.B1] was subsisting as on the date of accident, no complaint is lodged by the appellant – respondent No.3 with the senior police officials stating that the name of the driver of the lorry was changed from Jadhav Vijay to Maruthi Rathod, no steps are taken by the appellant – respondent No.3 to show that there are two persons by names Jadhav Vijay and Maruthi Rathod and no protest petition is filed by Maruthi Rathod before the Court claiming that he is not the driver of the crime vehicle.
10. The learned Tribunal having considered the evidence of PW2 with that of Exs.A1 and A2 arrived at a conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.
11. Insofar as the compensation, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.11,760/- per month basing on Ex.A6 - salary certificate of the deceased issued by Veeaar Security Agency, Hyderabad Ex.X1 - certified copy of attendance register for the period from 04.10.2011 to 03.02.2012 and also the evidence of PW3 – Mohd. Rafiuddin, arrived annual income at Rs.1,41,120/- [11,760 x 12], deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses and arrived at Rs.1,05,840/- [1,41,120 – (1/4th of 1,41,120 = 35,280)], taken the age of the deceased as 37 years, applied multiplier ‘15’ and arrived loss of dependency at Rs.15,87,600/- [1,05,840 x 15]. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium to respondent No.1 - petitioner No.1, Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of love and affection to respondent Nos.2 to 5 - petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expense. In total the Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,12,600/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual deposit against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally [i.e., respondent Nos.6 and 7 and appellant herein].
12. Just compensation can be awarded to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 - petitioners in absence of any cross-appeal. See: Surekha1.
13. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners are entitled for future prospects, spousal consortium, parental consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as per the decision in Janabai2.
14. This Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.11,760/- per month, rightly taken the age of the deceased as 37 years and applied multiplier ‘15’.
15. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under:
| Sl.No. | Name of the Head | Compensation awarded by this Court |
| 1. | Income | Rs.11,760/- per month |
| 2. | Add 40% future prospects | Rs.16,464/-11,760 + 4,704 40% of 11,760 = 4,704 |
| 3. | Deduct 1/4th towards personal expenses | Rs.12,348/- 16,464 – 4,116 1/4th of 16,464 = 4,116 |
| 4. | Annual income | Rs.1,48,176/- 12,348 x 12 |
| 5. | Multiplier ‘15’ | Rs.22,22,640/- 1,48,176 x 15 |
| Loss of dependency | Rs.22,22,640/- | |
| 6. | Consortium Rs.48,400/- to each petitioner | Rs.2,42,000/- 48,400 x 5 |
| 7. | Loss of estate | Rs.18,150/- |
| 8. | Funeral expenses | Rs.18,150/- |
| Total | Rs.25,00,940/- |
17. Appellant – respondent No.3 has not made out any case to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal and the respondent Nos.1 to 5 – petitioners are entitled for just compensation as stated supra.
18. In the result, MACMA.No.37 of 2016 is dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under:
a) The impugned award dated 23.09.2015, passed in MVOP.No.845 of 2012, stands modified.
b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.18,12,600/- is enhanced to Rs.25,00,940/- together with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment.
c) Respondent Nos.1 to 5 – petitioners are directed to pay court fee on the enhanced amount.
d) Appellant - respondent No.3 and respondents Nos.6 and 7 – respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally 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.
e) Respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.12,50,470/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.
f) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.3,75,141/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.
g) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 – petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are entitled for an amount of Rs.2,50,094/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.
Interim order if any shall stand vacated, miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.