HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1219 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.484 of 2005, dated 16.05.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appellant is the claimant. The O.P. was filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of death of the deceased/Chinnamak Veeresh, in the accident which occurred on 16.05.2005 at about 6.45 a.m., while the deceased along with others, were proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP-11-W-8666 from Ramchandrapuram to Hyderabad, one APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-09-W-5010, driven by its Driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Auto, as a result, the inmates of the Auto sustained serious injuries and were shifted to 2 GAC, J MACMA.No.1219 of 2008 Gandhi hospital. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 02.06.2005 while undergoing treatment in the said hospital.
4. Basing on the complaint of the family members of the deceased, the SHO, Ramchandrapuram Police Station registered a case in Crime No.157 of 2005 against the driver of the APSRTC Bus for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC. The claimant is the mother of the deceased. It is the specific averment that the deceased was hale and healthy and was contributing his income to the family.
5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents disputing the age and income of the deceased. It was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-, taking the notional income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum, as there is no specific documentary evidence before the Tribunal. 3
GAC, J MACMA.No.1219 of 2008
7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence would be with respect to the quantum alone.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant that the Tribunal has erred in taking the notional income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum while calculating the compensation and prayed to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and also to grant future prospects and amounts under other notional heads considering the proposition of the Apex Court while calculating the compensation and prayed to allow the appeal.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent- RTC contended that there is no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same and 4 GAC, J MACMA.No.1219 of 2008 therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal confirming the judgment of the Tribunal.
11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on 16.05.2005. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased, who deposed that the deceased was aged 20 years as on the date of accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd1., taken the income of the deceased/coolie, as Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, taking into consideration the above said proposition, the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.4,500/- per month.
12. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards loss of dependency, loss of estate, funeral and other expenses.
13. As per the oral evidence of PW-1 and Exs.A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 (FIR, Inquest report, charge sheet and postmortem report of the deceased respectively), the deceased was aged about 20 years 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 5 GAC, J MACMA.No.1219 of 2008 as on the date of the accident and the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. If 40% future prospects is added, it would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500+1800). As the deceased was an unmarried person, 50% of his earnings has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, his contribution towards family would come to Rs.3,150/-. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2, the multiplier applicable is '18' for the age group of 15 to 25 years. If the annual income and multiplier '18' are applied, then, the loss of earnings would be Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.3,150 X 12 X 18).
14. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others3, claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 2017 ACJ 2700 6 GAC, J MACMA.No.1219 of 2008
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation under the following heads;
1. Loss of dependency Rs.6,80,400/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium Rs.40,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.7,50,400 /-
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total compensation of Rs.7,50,400/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Therefore, the appellant i.e. the mother of the deceased, is entitled for the said amount, on payment of deficit court fee and the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation, as the accident occurred in the year 2005.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 18.11.2022 ajr