THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.2055 of 2010

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 30.09.2010 in M.V.O.P.No.1685 of 1999 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The petition vide M.V.O.P.No.1685 of 1999 was filed by the appellants/petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- for the death of the deceased A.Mallesh, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 23.12.1998. The trial Court got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the appellants/petitioners and got marked Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf. R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the respondents and got marked Exs.B1 to B5 on their behalf. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.1,92,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner therein preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount granted by the trial Court.

3. Parties hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.12.1998, the deceased was proceeding in a lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 6872, as cleaner from Rajahmundry to Vizag. The driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over it and dashed against the lorry bearing No.AET 2475, which was coming in opposite direction. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police of Gandepalli, registered a case in Crime No.97 of 1998, under Sections 338 and 304-A of IPC, against the driver of the said lorry.

5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, but the trial Court held that driver of the lorry had no valid driving license, as such fixed liability only against respondent No.1. Therefore, requested the Court for pay and recovery and further requested for enhancement of the compensation amount granted by the trial Court.

7. Admittedly, respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry. The respondent No.1 is having valid insurance policy with respondent No.2 as on the date of accident. The petitioners have filed the present O.P, in the year 1999 and the appeal was filed in the year 2010. As the M.V.O.P is a beneficial legislation, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

8. Perusal of the record shows that the deceased was aged about 20 years, working as cleaner of the lorry and earning Rs.2,000/- per month and thus the annual income of the deceased would comes to Rs.24,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 12 =

Rs.24,000/-).

9. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,, (2009) 6 SCC 121 if the deceased was unmarried, half of his income has to be deducted

towards his personal expenses. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would comes to Rs.12,000/- per annum (Rs.24,000 – Rs.12,000= Rs.12,000/-) and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, held that the future prospects of income of the self-employed shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e., 20 years, 40% of the income i.e., Rs.4,800/- has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.16,800/- (Rs.12,000/- + Rs.4,800/- = Rs.16,800/-). This sum if multiplied with the multiplier 18 applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 20 years, it would come to Rs.3,02,400/- (Rs.16,800 x 18 = Rs.3,02,400/-).