Telangana High Court
Jangama Lalitha And 3 Others vs Pm. Palani Swamy And Another on 29 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A Nos.16 of 2010 and 3494 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 04.08.2008 in O.P.No.1275 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII Addl. Dist. Judge) at Nizamabad, the claimants have filed MACMA No.16 of 2010 for enhancement of the compensation and the Insurance Company has filed MACMA No.3494 of 2012 questioning the quantum of compensation awarded.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the very same finding in O.P.No.1275 of 2002, both the appeals are disposed of by way of common judgment.
3. Heard Mr. Azar Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the claimants, Mr. Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and Mr. T. Ramulu, learned counsel for the respondent/owner of offending vehicle and perused the entire material on record.
4. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and the Tribunal has granted compensation of KS, J MACMA_16_2010 and 3494_2012 2 Rs.4,98,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
5. The case of the claimants is that on 15.03.2002 at 11am, while the deceased along with his brother-in-law was riding the scooter from Navipet to Veerannagutta Village, near Markendeya temple, a lorry driven by its driver came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Scooter in opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. As on the date of accident, the deceased was working as a toddy tapper and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. 6 Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the claimants. It is submitted that the Tribunal had erred in taking the monthly income of Rs.3,500/-. It is further submitted that the multiplier that was applied by the Tribunal is '17' instead of '25'. He submits that under the other conventional heads, the amounts that were granted by the Tribunal were not just and reasonable.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that there is no evidence to establish that PW1 is the wife of the deceased KS, J MACMA_16_2010 and 3494_2012 3 and PW1 in her cross examination stated that the deceased was having own toddy tress and after his death, the said trees were given for lease and they are receiving income. It is further submitted that the amounts that were granted by the Tribunal were excessive.
8. The occurrence of accident and death of deceased are not disputed by the Insurance Company, for which reason, the said aspects are not discussed. The Insurance Company is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted while the claimants are seeking enhancement.
9. The Insurance Company had filed the appeal on the ground that the first claimant is not wife of the deceased. Except stating so, nothing is elicited by the Insurance Company during the trial before the Tribunal to prove that that first claimant is not wife of the deceased. In fact, the two sons and daughter who are claimant Nos.2 to 4 are also parties to the petition. In the said circumstances, the argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the first claimant is not wife of the deceased cannot be accepted.
10. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was workign as a toddy tapper and was earning an amount of around Rs.10,000/.- per month. However, the Tribunal concluded that the Income certificate KS, J MACMA_16_2010 and 3494_2012 4 filed under Ex.A6 cannot be believed and accordingly, considered the income of Rs.3,500/- per month. As per the evidence on record, no evidence was let in by the claimants in support of the same. However, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance 1, wherein, the income is taken as Rs.4,500/- without there being any evidence, this court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2 has held that while considering the compensation in cases of death, the future prospects of the self employed shall also be considered. Having regard to the age of deceased i.e. 30 years as on the date of accident and occupation as self- employed, if 40 percent of the income is included as future prospects, the monthly income would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500+1,800). As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v Delhi Transport Corporation 3, since the dependants are four members, 1/4th of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure which comes to Rs.1,575/- (Rs.6,300X1/4). Thus the 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 2 2017 (6) 170 (SC) 3 2009(6) SCC 121 KS, J MACMA_16_2010 and 3494_2012 5 annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be of Rs.56,700/- (Rs.4,725X12). As per Schedule II of the Act, the relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '17'. Thus, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,63,900/- (Rs.56,700 X 17).
12. As regards the consortium to be paid, each claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Pranay Sethi (2 Supra). With regard to the funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/-. Apart from that, the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection.
13. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation as below:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.9,63,900
(2) Funeral expenses and Rs.30,000
Loss of Estate
(3) Loss of spousal consortium Rs.40,000 for 1st claimant
(4) Loss of filial consortium Rs.1,20,000 for claimant
Nos.2 to 4
(5) Love and affection Rs.10,000
KS, J
MACMA_16_2010 and
3494_2012
6
Total compensation awarded Rs.11,63,900/-
14. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of the Insurance Company fails and the same is dismissed. However, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of the claimants is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,98,000/- to Rs.11,63,900/- as hereunder:
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The insuance company shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw entire amount without furnishing any security.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.02.2024 gvl