Telangana High Court
Gudiwada Muralidhar Naidu And Another vs A. Vittal And 2 Others on 28 December, 2023
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
1
Dr.GRR, J
macma_3436_2012
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3436 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants - claimants aggrieved by the award and decree dated 03.02.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.531 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Adilabad seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed by them.
2. The claimants are the son and wife of the deceased Gudiwada Chandra Sekhar Naidu.
3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased G.Chandra Sekhar Naidu in a motor vehicle accident. The case of the claimants was that the deceased was aged 60 years. He was earning Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per annum through agriculture and used to contribute the same towards the petitioners. On 21.05.2004 at about 08:00 PM while the deceased was going to a temple alone on N.H.No.7 on foot and reached the over bridge of Dasnapur near Adilabad, in the meantime, an Ambassador Car bearing No.AP- 25-F-5388 driven by its driver in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner 2 Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012 came in opposite direction and hit the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down from the bridge into Dasnapur rivulet. He sustained severe injuries, fracture of chest bone and left hand. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Adilabad and while undergoing treatment succumbed to the injuries. The Police Adilabad registered a case in Crime No.47 of 2004 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the Ambassador Car. The petitioners claimed compensation from respondents 1 to 3 (the driver, owner and insurer of the car bearing No.AP-25-F-5388).
4. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.3 filed counter. He called for strict proof of the petition averments and that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the car by its driver. He contended that the compensation claimed was excessive, exorbitant and the petitioners were not entitled for the same.
6. The Tribunal framed the issues and caused enquiry.
7. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and got examined an eye-witness to the accident as PW.2 and a witness who stated that he gave his agricultural lands to the deceased on lease as PW.3. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. Ex.A1 was the attested copy of the FIR, Ex.A2 was the attested copy of the inquest panchanama of the deceased, Ex.A3 was the attested copy of the post-mortem examination report 3 Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012 of the deceased and Ex.A4 was the attested copy of the charge-sheet. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.
8. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal considered that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-25-F-5388 and held respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
9. With regard to the quantum of compensation, though PW.3 stated that he gave his agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.25-00gts. in Bandala Nagapur Village on lease to the deceased and that the deceased was earning around Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, the Tribunal disbelieved the said evidence and considered his income notionally @ Rs.18,000/- per annum. By deducting one-third of the amount towards the expenses of the deceased, considered the net loss of earnings as Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 60 years and by applying multiplier "8", assessed the loss of earnings as Rs.96,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.7,500/- towards loss of consortium to the petitioner No.2 and awarded Rs.7,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges and medical expenses. In total, the Tribunal 4 Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012 awarded an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
10. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimants preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider the income of the agriculturist. Seeking proof for agricultural income was unwarranted. The Tribunal ought to have assessed agricultural income by a reasonable presumption. The Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence of PW.3 in a proper perspective and disbelieving the same was improper. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate and consortium were insufficient. The Tribunal considering the deceased as a non-earning person, inspite of the evidence of PW.3 was illegal. The Tribunal failed to apply proper multiplier and prayed to enhance the compensation.
11. Heard Ms.T.Praneetha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.
12. PW.3 in his evidence stated that he owned Ac.25-00gts. of land in Bandala Nagapur Village and had given the entire land on lease to G.Chandra Sekhar Naidu. The deceased used to pay lease @ Rs.3,000/- per acre every year and might be earning Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- net income by doing agriculture. It was elicited in his cross-examination that no document was filed 5 Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012 evidencing executing lease of his lands to the deceased. In the absence of evidence in the form of any receipts or other documents evidencing purchasing of fertilizers or engagement of tractor or other agricultural equipment to show that the deceased was cultivating an extent of Ac.25-00gts. of land on lease basis, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW.3.
13. The learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harpreet Kaur and Others v. Mohinder Yadav and Others 1, wherein the income of the deceased who owned agricultural land to an extent of Ac.12-00gts. and had also taken land on lease of others and was cultivating total Ac.66-00gts. of land was considered as Rs.1,50,000/- per annum.
14. In the said case documentary evidence was filed in proof of the same. But there is no documentary evidence in this case to believe that the deceased was pattedar or cultivator of any agricultural lands. But, however considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2 wherein the appellant was working as a coolie, basing on the ground realities prevailing at the relevant point of time, the wage of the labourer was considered as between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day during the period of accident occurred in 1 2023 ACJ 1799 2 2011 ACJ 2426 6 Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012 the year 2004 and in the present case also, the date of accident was on 21.05.2004, it is considered fit to take the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month.
15. As per the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others 3 , as future prospects are to be applied even in cases where the deceased was self- employed, considering the age of the deceased as 60 years as per Exs.A1 to A4, 10 % is added towards future prospects. As such, the income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.4,500/- + Rs.450/- = Rs.4,950/-. Multiplier "9" is taken as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 4. One-third is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased and the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.4,950/- x 12 x 9 x 2/3 = Rs.3,56,400/-.
16. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Others 5, the claimant No.1 is entitled for parental consortium and claimant No.2 is entitled for spousal consortium. As such, an amount of Rs.40,000/- with enhancement @ 10 % for every three years as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (cited 3 2017 ACJ 2700 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 2018 ACJ 2782 7 Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012 supra) is awarded to each of the claimants. Hence, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.44,000/- each under this head.
17. The claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which should be enhanced @ 10 % for every three years as per the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi Case (cited supra). As such, an amount of Rs.16,500/- each is awarded under the heads 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses' respectively.
18. Hence, the compensation entitled by the claimants under various heads is as follows:
S. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Loss of Dependency Rs.3,56,400/-
2. Loss of Consortium Rs.88,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-
Total: Rs.4,77,400/-
19. As the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,15,000/-, it is considered fit to enhance the amount to Rs.4,77,400/-, which is considered as just and reasonable.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,15,000/- to Rs.4,77,400/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is directed to 8 Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012 deposit the above amount with interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount deposited if any earlier. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the amounts as per the ratio awarded by the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date: 28th December, 2023 Nsk.