HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
M.A.C.M.A.No. 2355 of 2008
J U D G M E N T:
This is an Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Award dated 15.06.2007 in O.P.No. 250 of 2002 passed by the learned Special Judge for the trial of Offences under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act - cum- VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - XX Additional Chief Judge at Secunderabad.
2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the death of the husband of the 1st claimant in the accident that occurred on 23.01.2002 at about 14.00 hours near Nacharam Main road while he was going on TVS Moped bearing Registration No. AP 10D 4317 as rider. At that time, the driver of the oil tanker bearing No. AIH 1899 which was proceeding towards Habsiguda from Mallapur drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed TVS moped and dragged the deceased for a distance of 200 yards. The deceased was immediately shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment and then to CDR Hospital, Secunderabad where he was declared dead while undergoing treatment.
3. In respect of the accident, two O.Ps. were filed and common award was passed. As far as O.P.No. 250 of 2022 is 2 concerned, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and the Court below granted Rs. 4,95,600/-.
4. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was doing kirana business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal had taken his income as Rs.4,500/- and considering the age of the deceased as 50, applied multiplier '13' and granted compensation of Rs.4,95,600/-. The Insurance Company is before this Court questioning the quantum of compensation.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company Sri Srinivasa Rao V. submits that even for taking income as Rs.4,500/- there is no evidence on record and the Court below ought not to have the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier '13'. It is submitted that the Tribunal without considering these facts had granted the compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance1, without there being any evidence, had taken the income of a daily labourer as Rs.4,500/- per month. It is further submitted that the 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 3 Insurance Company failed to make out any ground seeking interference with the Award passed by the Tribunal.
7. With regard to the income, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal had taken Rs.4,500/-. Applying the law laid down in Ramachandrappa's case, this Court is of the view that the Court below had rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- which needs no interference.
8. Coming to the multiplier, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the multiplier for the age of 50 years is '13'. The Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier and granted the compensation. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal.
9. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
------------------------------------ LALITHA KANNEGANTI,J 09th March 2023 ksld 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 5