Telangana High Court
Apsrtc, Rep By Its Managing Director vs T.Srinivas Rao And T.Krishna Kumari on 15 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No.815 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is preferred by the A.P.Road Transport Corporation questioning the grant of compensation of Rs.9,56,500/- in O.P.No.238 of 2010 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, dated 22.08.2012.
2. None appears for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2/claimants, who are parents of the deceased and perused the record.
3. The deceased was riding on a motor bike on 13.11.2009 and when he reached ESI cross roads, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 1938 came from behind and ran over him. The deceased died on the spot. The parents of the deceased filed claim petition for Rs.10 lakhs.
4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record i.e. PWs.1 to 3, and documents i.e. Exs.A1 to A11, granted compensation of Rs.9,56,500/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing this petition till the date of realisation, payable by the respondent. 2
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/claimants, seeks enhancement of the compensation granted, though they have not filed any appeal or cross-objections.
6. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh 1 and Surekha w/o Rajendra Nakhte and others v. Santosh s/o.Namdeo Jadhav and others 2, held that the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants and directed to pay compensation of Rs.49,85,376/- to the claimants when the High Court found that said amount was reasonable but declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that the appellants had failed to file cross-appeal.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is meagre in OP.No.238 of 2010, dt.22.08.2012, and claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation.
7. The deceased was working in Bajaj Alliance Insurance company. PW3 was the employee of the Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company and identified the pay slip of the deceased-Ex.A9 and 1 (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 222 2 (2021) 16 SCC 467 3 deposed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal treated the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month after all deductions. The same can be adopted by this Court for calculating loss of income due to the death of the deceased. 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 3, future prospects @ 50% of the income of the deceased has to be added which comes to Rs.1,26,000/-p.a. Since the dependents are 2 members, 1/3rd of the income i.e. Rs.42,000/-(1,26,000x1/3) has to be deducted towards personal expenses which comes to Rs.84,000/-p.a.(1,26,000-42,000). As per the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra 3) the relevant multiplier for the age group of 15-20 and 21-25 is '18' and then the loss of income due to the death of the deceased comes to Rs.15,12,000/- (84,000 x 18).
8. The compensation granted by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.15,000 and 25,000, respectively. Further, the claimants are granted Rs.48,000/- each towards parental consortium. In total both the claimants are 3 (2017 ACJ 2700 = AIR 2017 SC 5157) 4 entitled to a total compensation of Rs.16,48,000/- towards compensation.
9. 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 APSRTC is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimants is enhanced to Rs.16,48,000/-with interest at the rate 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization payable by the respondent. 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 Date: 15.02.2024 tk