Telangana High Court
Doulath Bee, Mahaboobnagar District ... vs Musthaq Hussain, Mahabubnagar ... on 5 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.1129 OF 2010
&
M.A.C.M.A No.3992 OF 2012
COMMON JUDMENT:
1. M.A.C.M.A.No.1129 of 2010 is filed by the claimants
questioning the meagre compensation granted by the Tribunal.
Questioning the very same order, the Insurance Company has
filed M.A.C.M.A.No.3992 of 2012.
2. Heard learned counsel for respondent-Insurance
Company and learned counsel for the petitioners/claimants and perused the record.
3. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the very same award granted by the Tribunal, both are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order.
4. The manner in which the accident had taken place and the liability are not in dispute.
5. Briefly, the case of the claimants is that deceased was working as a paid Driver of his father's car/R.W.1. While driving the vehicle, on 24.07.2001, the deceased met with an accident when an unknown lorry came in the opposite direction and hit the car. The claimants filed a petition stating that the 2 deceased was being paid Rs.3,000/- by R.W.1 who is his father and he was also living separately.
6. The Tribunal found that R.W.1 was working as a Watchman, it cannot be believed that he was paying Rs.3,000/- p.m. to deceased and engaged him as a Driver to his private car. However, considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- p.m., compensation was granted by the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal had committed an error in granting compensation when Tribunal found that it was highly improbable that the owner of the vehicle was working as Watchman and engaged his own son for driving his vehicle and at the same breath finding that the deceased was being paid salary. Both are contradictory findings and accordingly, need to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Prakash Shankar Gurav And Another 1 and judgment of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1 2006 (2) T.A.C. 575 (Kant) 3 Hyderabad v. K.Anjaneyulu and another 2 and argued that father engaging a son as a Driver is neither improbable nor impossible. It was an arrangement made by the father to engage his son. As such, relying on the judgments stated supra, prayed for grant of compensation.
9. It is admitted that R.W.1 has purchased the vehicle and he owned it as a private vehicle. The other sources of income are not placed before the Court. However, the fact remains that a private car was purchased by R.W.1. It cannot be said that it is un-natural for a father to engage his son to drive his vehicle. Similar view was taken in the judgments stated supra.
10. The accident was of the year, 2001, compensation can be granted considering the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- p.m.
11. Accordingly, considering the income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- p.m., the annual income comes to Rs.30,000/-. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 3, 40% has to be considered towards future prospects which comes to Rs.42,000/- (30,000+12,000). In view of the judgment of the 2 L.C.ACR 2007(4) A.P.457 3 2017(6) ALD 170 (SC) 4 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 4, the appropriate multiplier would be '18'. When applied '18' multiplier, the amount comes to Rs.7,56,000/-(42,000x18). Out of which, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal expenditure, which comes to Rs.5,67,000/-(7,56,000-1,89,000). Apart from the same, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-(40,000x4 dependants) towards consortium and an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus the total compensation amount is arrived at Rs.7,57,000/-. As the contribution of the deceased is considered as 40% (7,57,000- 3,02,800) in causing the accident, the claimants are entitled to receive 60% of the compensation. Accordingly, the total compensation, the claimants are entitled to is Rs.4,54,200/-
12. In the result, MACMA.No.1129 of 2010 is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,08,420/- to Rs.4,54,200/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation, on payment of 4 2009(6) SCC 121 5 deficit Court fee. Except the above, the award of the Tribunal shall remain same on all other aspects.
13. Consequently, MACMA.No.3992 of 2012 filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 05.08.2024 dv