Telangana High Court
D Padma And 5 Others vs Chhangalal Varma And Another on 19 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A Nos.991 OF 2015 & 3253 OF 2014
COMMON JUDMENT:
1. MACMA.No.991 of 2015 is filed by the appellants-
claimants on behalf of the deceased against the Order and
Decree dated 10.06.2013 in O.P.No.2285 of 2010 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where under the
Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.14,55,000/- towards
compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as
against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death
of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident occurred on
18.06.2010. MACMA.No.3253 of 2014 is filed by the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company questioning the
compensation granted by the Tribunal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the record.
3. Since both the appeals are filed on the very same findings of the Tribunal, both are heard together and disposed off by way of this common order. 2
4. The case of the deceased is that while he was traveling to Kurnool in Tavera Chevrolet vehicle bearing No.AP-9BG- 7208 driven by one U.Subrahmanyam, when the said vehicle reached Manopad, the driver of the said vehicle drove in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and lost control of the vehicle, resulting in the vehicle turning turtle and consequently the death of the deceased after having received injuries.
5. The claim was made on the ground that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/-p.m. In proof of income, letters issued by the private persons certifying that their children were being taken in the Omni vehicle of the deceased to the school and getting them back, for which reason, they were paying different amounts were filed. Exs.A-8 to A-12 are the said letters. Insofar as certificate under Ex.A-10 is concerned, the witness was examined as P.W.3 who was working as head constable in Intelligence Department. He stated that his two children were being taken by the deceased and brought back from school and an amount of Rs.4,000/- was being paid. Though the claim of income of Rs.20,000/- 3 was made before the Tribunal, the Tribunal calculated the income at Rs.10,000.-
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the Tavera vehicle and his claim for compensation cannot be considered since the policy was not taken for the said passengers in the vehicle. The only reason given by the learned counsel is that addresses of the driver and the deceased were different. Only on the basis of different addresses, it cannot be said that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the said vehicle. The said ground raised is not accepted.
7. Insofar as future prospects and multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal had taken the multiplier as '16', however, the multiplier should be '17' in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 1. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 2009(6) SCC 121 4 Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, 40% has to be considered towards future prospects.
8. Thus, the appellant is entitled to 40% on the income of the deceased towards future prospects (Rs.14,000+33600) which comes to Rs.1,68,000/-(Rs.14,000x12). Deduction of 1/4th towards his personal expenses comes to Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.1,68,000-42,000(1,68,000x1/4)). Applying appropriate multiplier '17', it comes to Rs.21,42,000/-(1,26,000x17).
9. The compensation is accordingly enhanced under various heads as follows:
Awarded by Awarded by
Sl.No. Name of Head Tribunal this Court
01. Loss of future Rs.14,40,000/- Rs.21,42,000/-
income with
future prospects
02. Loss of Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,64,000/-
consortium (6
claimants)
03. Loss of estate & Rs.10,000/- Rs.36,300/-
funeral expenses
Rs.14,55,000/- Rs.24,42,300/-
TOTAL
10. In the result, the MACMA.No.991 of 2015 is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.14,55,000/- to Rs.24,42,300/-. The 2 2017(6) ALD 170 (SC) 5 enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum. The appellants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee.
11. During the pendency of the appeal, claimant No.6 died. In the said circumstances, the wife of the deceased would be entitled for the share of claimant No.6. Except this, the award of the Tribunal shall remain same on all other aspects.
12. Insofar as MACMA.No.3253 of 2014 is concerned, in view of findings in MACMA.No.991 of 2015 filed by the claimants, I do not find any valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, MACMA.No.3253 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
13. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 19.02.2024 dv