Telangana High Court
The Divisional Manager / D.O.Xi, vs Hausa Nazarath on 13 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No.1985 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/R2-Insurance Company questioning the compensation of Rs.4,73,000/- awarded in O.P.No.1702 of 2005 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-(Mahila Courts) at Hyderabad, against the claim of the dependants/claimants of Rs.8 lakhs.
2. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company and learned counsel for the claimants.
3. On 20.01.2005 while the deceased was travelling in a Qualis vehicle bearing No.AP 11 H 9786, the driver of the Qualis vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry coming in the opposite direction, resulting in injuries to the persons travelling in the Qualis and the death of the deceased.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the evidence of PW2 shows that the accident 2 occurred due to the negligence of the lorry also, for which reason of contributory negligence, only 50% compensation could be granted.
5. The said argument is based on the evidence of PW2 who admitted that the accident is a head on collision. However, he admitted that the lorry also contributed to the accident. The said PW2 was sitting in the 'Dhaba' on the main road. The persons sitting in the 'dhaba' around 2.00 A.M. and his opinion that the lorry contributed to the accident cannot form basis to come to a conclusion that the lorry has also contributed to the accident and only 50% of the compensation can be granted.
6. I see no force in the argument of the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. The basis for argument is the opinion given by PW2 which cannot be considered.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/claimants seeks enhancement of the compensation granted, though they have not filed any appeal or cross-objections. In support of the said contention he relied on 3 the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh 1.
8. He also relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Surekha w/oRajendra Nakhte and others v. Santosh s/o.namdeo Jadhav and others [(2021) 16 SCC 467], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court directed to pay compensation of Rs.49,85,376/- when the High Court found that the said amount was reasonable, however there was no cross appeal. The Honourable Supreme Court held that the said amount can be granted though no cross appeal was filed.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds infirmity with the award passed by the Tribunal in OP.No.1702/2005, dt.07.06.2007 and claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation.
10. The deceased was doing stationery business at City Civil Court, Hyderabad and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was also having licence for carrying on the job typing work in the Court premises. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month which is very meagre. Hence, 1 (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 222 4 the same can be considered as to Rs.7,000/- per month. Then the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.84,000/- (7000 x 12). In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2, future prospects @ 25% of the income of the deceased i.e. 21,000/- has to be added which comes to Rs.1,05,000/-p.a. Since the dependents are 3 members, 1/3rd of the income i.e. Rs.35,000/-(1,05,000x1/3) has to be deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.70,000/-p.a.(1,05,000-35,000). As per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act the relevant multiplier is '14' and then the loss of income due to the death of the deceased comes to Rs.9,80,000/- (70,000 x 14).
11. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to the 1st claimant towards consortium is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- and the compensation granted by the Tribunal to the children of the deceased-R2 and R3 herein towards love and affection is enhanced to Rs.40,000/- each, which comes to Rs.80,000/-. Further, the claimants are also granted 15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
2 (2017 ACJ 2700 = AIR 2017 SC 5157) 5
12. In total claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,15,000/- towards compensation.
13. For the reasons stated above and in view of findings by this Court that the claimants are eligible for enhanced compensation, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed.
14. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants is enhanced to Rs.11,15,000/-with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization payable by respondents 1 and 2 in the OP. The claimants have to pay the deficit Court fee or the Tribunal may deduct the amount required for the purpose of Court fee from the amount awarded to the claimants after respondents Insurance Company deposits the amount As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J 13.02.2024 tk