Telangana High Court
Katukojula Shoba And 3 Ors vs N.Laxman And 2 Ors on 19 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A. No.1934 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the order, dated 11.03.2008, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1021 of 2004 by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court) at Warangal (for short, the Tribunal) refusing to grant the compensation of Rs.20 lakhs as claimed on the death of the deceased, who is the husband of first appellant, father of second and third appellants and son of fourth appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case of claimants is that on 02.05.2004 at about 2.00 p.m., while the deceased was returning to his house and when he reached near Sumangali Function hall, the driver of Jeep bearing No.AP-36V -7647, drove in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. Resultantly, the deceased received injuries on his head and all over the body and fell in the drainage by the side of the road on account of the impact by the Jeep. Immediately, he was shifted to NIMS hospital, while undergoing treatment, the deceased died.
2
3. The son of the deceased i.e, 4th appellant filed criminal complaint, which was registered by the Panjagutta Police as Cr.No.475 of 2004 in which the description of the vehicle that caused in the accident was not given.
4. The Police registered the crime and filed charge sheet against the Jeep driver. According to the charge sheet, the vehicle was identified on account of the evidence given by two witnesses who were present at the scene.
5. The appellants are before this Court on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and refused to grant compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the findings of the Tribunal that the deceased was intoxicated and fell into drainage is negatived by the injuries received by the deceased. In the Post mortem report, the injuries clearly indicate that the deceased was hit by the vehicle. The delay in identifying the vehicle is no consequence. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal has to be reversed and compensation should be granted to the claimants. 3
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company would submit nearly 15 days after the incident, the alleged eye witnesses were examined. No credibility can be given to the said statements of the witnesses. Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has correctly concluded that the vehicle was not involved in accident. The deceased was in intoxicated condition under influence of alcohol, he fell into drainage and sustained injuries resulting in his death. Even the charge sheet reflects that the deceased was intoxicated. Both the wife and son who were examined are not eye witnesses to the accident. Since, the Tribunal had correctly assessed the evidence in its correct perceptive, the appeal has to be dismissed.
7. It is admitted that the deceased received the following injuries:
1. Abrated Lacerations 4x2 on the scalp in the lower occipital region
2. Abrasions of 5x4 on the tip of left shoulder
3. Two lacerated 5x2 and 2x1 both skin deep on the middle of shin
4. Abrasions of 3x2 on the middle of right shin.
5. Contrusions of 1/3rd of the scalp 6x3 on the occipital region, Contrusions of right temporal occipital region, Diffuse sub-acronid hammerage present all over the brain.
8. The deceased had received injuries on the head, shoulders and both left and right sides of the shin (lower part of the legs) 4 area. The Tribunal observed that the deceased fell into drainage and received the said injuries. No reasons are given as to why the Tribunal had concluded on the basis of the injuries received that the deceased fell into drainage and received injuries. No reasons are given by the Tribunal as to how the deceased had received injuries on both legs in the shin area. Receiving of injuries on the shin area back side and also head and shoulders would reflect that in all probability, the deceased was hit by vehicle in the lower part of the body and he was resultantly pushed to the side of the road due to impact of the vehicle and fell into the drainage. It is highly improbable that a drunkard falling into a drainage would receive the injuries described above, which are all over the body.
9. Since the injuries received and the evidence of PW-2 who is eye witness and cited in the charge sheet as LW-6 can be believed, this court deems it appropriate to set-aside the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased did not die on account of an accident and resultantly, the petitioners are entitled to compensation.
5
10. Insofar as the deduction towards personal and living expenses is concerned, the deceased was married and survived by wife, two children and mother, then total dependents are four. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1, the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third, where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. In the present case, total dependents of the deceased are four. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has to be one-fourth (1/4th).
11. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.3 held that in case the deceased holds permanent job, an addition of 30% of established income should be awarded towards future prospects, where the deceased age was 40 to 50 years. In the present case, since the age of deceased at the time of the 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 accident was 42 years, an addition of 30% of monthly income of the deceased can be taken towards future prospects.
12. With regard to the multiplier, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier is '14' for the age groups of 41 to 45. The age of the deceased as on the date of the accident was 42 years.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in the case of Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 3, decided on 06.12.2022, taking into consideration the decision of Sarala Verma (supra) and also the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The said enhancement and revision at 10% every 3 years has been done taking into consideration, raise in the cost of expenses and cost of living that has arisen during the intervening period from the date of decisions of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.
14. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is calculated as under:
3
2023(1) ALD 107(SC) 7 Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 Income Rs.1,63,140/- per annum (Rs.13,595/- per month) 2 Future prospects Rs.48,942/- (30% of income) 3 Total income Rs.2,12,082/-
2 Deduction towards personal Rs.53,020/- (i.e., 1/4th of total
expenses income )
3 Net Income Rs.1,59,062/- (i.e., Rs.2,12,082/- (-)
Rs.53,020/-)
4 Multiplier 14
5 Loss of dependency Rs.22,26,868/- (i.e., Rs.1,59,062/-
x 14)
6 Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4) Rs. 1,60,000/-
7 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
8 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total compensation to be Rs.24,16,868/-
paid:
15. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.24,16,868/-. The compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. Out of the compensation amount, 8 appellants/claimants Nos. 1 to 4, who are wife, children and mother of the deceased are each entitled to 25%. On such deposit, claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
______________ K.SURENDER Date: 19.02.2024 ktm/bms