Telangana High Court
Ch.Laxminacharamma And 3 Others vs V.Narsimloo And Another on 16 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
M.A.C.M.A. No.1315 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 08.12.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.311 of 2003 by the Family Court, Secunderabad (for short, the Court below).
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant No.1 is the wife and appellant Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of the deceased Ch.Swamy Rangaiah. On 12.07.2003 at about 1.00 P.M., the deceased was going on foot and when he reached near Gandammagudi on N.H. No.9 R.C. Puram, a scooter bearing No.AP 28E 7969, which was coming in high speed in rash and negligent manner dashed to the deceased, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained head injury. The deceased was admitted in BHEL Hospital on 13.07.2003 and was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, for treatment. The deceased died while undergoing treatment on 25.07.2003. Ramchandrapuram Police registered a case in Crime No.168 of 2003 against the rider of the crime vehicle. The deceased was 49 years old working in BHEL and drawing salary of Rs.14,012/- per month. He was the only earning member of the family and all the claimants are depending on his income. The 1st respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle. Hence, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The claimants filed the aforesaid O.P. claiming a compensation of TA,J 2 MACMA.No.1315 of 2008 Rs.16,00,000/-, against respondents 1 & 2, the owner and the insurer of the crime vehicle, for the death of the deceased.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/claimants filed the present appeal, seeking to grant compensation.
5. Heard.
6. The order passed by the Court below with regard to the bona fide issue as to whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No.AP 28E 7969 by its rider is negatived by this Court in the light of the evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness and a co-employee in BHEL along with the deceased, who categorically stated that it was the scooter which came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained head injury and thereafter he died and there is no other instance to say that the cause of the death is not because of the scooter accident, but for any other reasons. In the absence of the same, this Court finds that the cause of death of the deceased is because of the scooter accident and since the 1st TA,J 3 MACMA.No.1315 of 2008 respondent remained ex parte and since the 2nd respondent/insurance company has already insured the crime vehicle, the liability falls on the 2nd respondent/insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.
7. Insofar as computing the compensation is concerned, the deceased is an employee of BHEL and Ex.A-9 is the pay slip of the deceased indicating his monthly salary as Rs.14,012/-. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased as Rs.14,012/- per month. The Tribunal did not grant any amount towards future prospects. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to addition of 30% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi1. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.18,216/- (Rs.14,012/- + Rs.4,204/-), and after deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased since there are four family members, which comes to Rs.13,662/- (Rs.18,216/- - Rs.4,554/- (1/4)), the annual income comes to Rs.1,63,944/- (Rs.13,662/- x 12 months). The age of the deceased at the time of the accident is 49 years. Therefore, the multiplier for the age of the deceased is '13' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another2. Hence, the compensation under the head 'loss of income' comes to Rs.21,31,272/- (Rs.1,63,944/- x 13). Apart from the same, the appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards conventional 1 2017(6) ALD 170 (SC) 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 TA,J 4 MACMA.No.1315 of 2008 heads, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.22,01,272/- (Rs.21,31,272/- + Rs.70,000/-). In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others3, appellant Nos.2 to 4, being minor children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each under the head of love and affection. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.23,51,272/- (Rs.22,01,272/- + Rs.1,50,000/-). Insofar as the interest is concerned, for the amount awarded by this Court, interest of 7.5% shall be computed from the date of petition till realization.
8. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by granting compensation of Rs.23,51,272/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. As the claimants claimed only Rs.16,00,000/-, they are directed to deposit deficit Court fee before the Tribunal. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date: 24th June, 2019 KL 3 2018 LawSuit (SC) 904