Telangana High Court
Ernam Anjaiah , Hyd And 2 Others vs Sadaveni Srinivas, Hyd And Another on 29 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A.No.565 OF 2017
JUDGMENT :
This appeal has been filed by the appellants who are petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.621 of 2012 on the file of learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Court below'). Being aggrieved by the order in the above referred M.V.O.P, dated 08.12.2016 whereunder, the Court below allowed their petition in part and granted a sum of Rs.9,39,000/- with simple interest @7.5%, the claimants/petitioners in the said M.V.O.P.621 of 2012 have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, (for short 'M.V. Act') and sought for enhancement of the compensation on the following grounds:
2. The Court below committed a grave error in awarding a meager amount of Rs.9,39,000/- against their claim for Rs.15,00,000/-. The Court below committed an error by considering the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- as if he is a skilled labour in spite of fact that he was pursuing B.Tech in Pulla Reddy Engineering College. The Court below failed to appreciate the judgments relied upon by the appellants and did not accept their claim that the notional income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.12,000/- per month, since he was an 2 MACMA No.565 of 2017 Engineering graduate, but awarded the compensation by simply considering him as a skilled labour, thereby, they sought for enhancement of the compensation. They have also claimed that the Court below could have considered the claim that had there been if no such accident, he could have completed his graduation and he could have proceeded to U.S.A for higher studies and he could have secured a good job through which he could earn Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per month.
3. As per the brief case of the petition filed by the appellants herein before the Court below, it appears that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents and appellant No.3 is the younger sister of one Sri Ernam Abhishek Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), he was pursuing his Engineering graduation in Pulla Reddy Engineering College. On 05.12.2011, he along with his classmates, Sri Garapati Jitendra Chowdary and Sri Vinod Kumar proceeding from Hyderabad to Wargal on bike, the deceased was the pillion rider of the bike and said Jitendra Chowdary was riding the same. When the bike reached CVR college bus stop, the driver of Indigo car bearing No. AP-15C-1819 which was proceeding from Turkapally village to Hyderabad, by driving the car with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and by going towards 3 MACMA No.565 of 2017 extreme right side of the road, dashed the bike on which the deceased and his friends were proceedings.
4. In view of the accident, the deceased and his friends received grievous injuries, even though they were shifted to hospital, the rider of the bike Jitendra Chowdary died on the way to hospital, whereas the deceased who was immediately shifted to Gurunanak Care Hospital, Musheerabad from which he was taken to Gandhi Hospital succumbed to the head injury on 10.12.2011. The appellants herein claimed that they have spent Rs.2,50,000/- for treatment and other incidental charges. On the basis of complaint lodged by the rider of the bike, a case in Crime No.307 of 2011 under Sections 304-(A) and 337 of IPC was registered against the driver of the Indigo Car and subsequently, the Police have filed charge sheet against him.
5. The appellants have claimed that at the time of accident the deceased was 19 years 11 months, he was pursuing 3rd year Engineering in Pulla Reddy Engineering College. He was the only male child to his parents, if there was no such accident, he could have completed his graduation in Engineering and he would be bread winner of the entire family, thereby, the appellants have claimed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as compensation.4
MACMA No.565 of 2017
6. The owner and insurer of the above referred car who were shown as respondent Nos.1 and 2 have opposed the claim, they filed a separate counters. The Court below has framed the following three issues for trial.
i. Whether the accident took place on 05.12.2011 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Indigo Car No.AP-15- AC-1819 causing death of the deceased?
ii Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
iii.To what relief?
7. During enquiry, the father of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and another rider of the bike G. Vinod Kumar was examined as PW-2 and they have examined one more witness as PW-3, Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of the appellants herein. The respondent/insurance company has examined RW-1 and marked Exs.B1 and B2. The Court below having appreciated the pleadings and also evidence having held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of above referred Indigo car, allowed the petition in part, however in spite of the clear claim by the appellants about the education and other issues of the deceased considered the expected income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- treating him as a skilled labour and allowed the petition in part granting a sum of Rs.9,39,000/-. 5 MACMA No.565 of 2017
8. Heard both parties.
9. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the Court below committed any wrong in assessing the expected income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-, thereby, awarded low compensation? if so, whether the request of the appellants herein can be allowed to increase the compensation, whether the appellants are entitled to Rs.15,00,000/- as prayed for?.
10. There is no serious dispute about the accident in which the deceased died. The evidence placed by PW-1 and PW2 and other documents marked as Ex.A1 to A5 i.e. certified copies of FIR, charge sheet, PME report etc clearly shows that when the deceased and his two friends were proceedings towards their college they met with accident when the above referred Indigo car dashed their bike. The record further shows that rider of the bike died on the same day whereas the deceased herein who was admitted in Gandhi Hospital succumbed to head injury after five days of the accident.
11. As per the oral evidence of the witnesses and other records, it clearly shows that the deceased was a 3rd year Engineering student pursuing his graduation at Pulla Reddy Engineering college Wargal. The deceased was the only son of the 6 MACMA No.565 of 2017 appellants herein, the appellants have claimed that the deceased was a merit student and if there was no such accident, he could have completed his graduation and he would be the only earning member of the family. Ex.A6 is the original Board of Secondary Education Certificate which goes to show that the deceased passed his 10th class in first class. As per the date of birth mentioned in Ex.A6, the deceased was aged about 19 years. It may be true that the deceased was not an employee, but he was only a student, however the other records placed by the appellants clearly indicates that he has completed his 2nd semester by the time of accident. As rightly contended by the appellants, had there been no such accident, he could have certainly completed his graduation. The Court below without considering this particular aspect, only on the ground that the deceased did not complete the graduation treated him as if he is a skilled labour for assessing the monthly income @Rs.5,000/-.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on judgment of erstwhile Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.Ramulamma and others Vs. Venkatesh Bus Union and another 1 for the proposition that in case of the final year Engineering student, the Court can assess the income of the 1 2011 ACJ 1702 7 MACMA No.565 of 2017 deceased based on the earnings of his classmates and it would be appropriate, reasonable and rational to take the minimum basic or salary at entry level fixed by Government to such jobs as basis for determining the income of the deceased. In this judgment the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh having considered the deceased was a final year B.E student with computers assessed the expected income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. In the said above referred case, the deceased was doing his B.E with computers. In the same judgment, it was also referred that even a class-IV employee is able to earn Rs.7,000/- to 10,000/- per month depending upon his service and a Junior Assistant is able to earn Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Here, the deceased who was a meritorious student and who was in 3rd year Engineering, if he could have completed his graduation and as rightly claimed by the appellants could have earned handful salary.
13. The appellants have also referred other judgment of the erstwhile Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in N.Surendra Rao Vs. B.Swamy 2 wherein High Court considered the income of an Engineering graduate as Rs.12,000/- per month, but deducted 50% of his income towards his personal expenditure. 2 2014 ACJ 2613 8 MACMA No.565 of 2017
14. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about the contention of the appellants that the deceased was doing 3rd year Engineering B.Tech in Pulla Reddy Engineering college. He was 19 years old at the time of accident. If really there was no such accident, he could have completed the graduation, even if, he joined a job based on the Engineering qualification, he could have earned at least Rs.12,000/- per month as a starting income which could be increased during the course of time. Therefore, the Court below ought to have considered all these aspects and assessed the income as Rs.12,000/- per month. There is no dispute that the deceased was a bachelor, therefore even if 50% of the said income is deducted still his expected contribution to the family was Rs.6,000/- per month, Rs.72,000/- per annum and in view of the age of the deceased being 19, the appropriate multiplier is 18. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs.12,96,000/- and also entitled to amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, thereby, they are entitled to amount of Rs.14,21,000/-. The compensation amount is increased from Rs.9,39,000/- to Rs.14,21,000/-.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs.
9MACMA No.565 of 2017
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU Date:29.02.2024 ktm