Telangana High Court
Raichur Hanmanthu And Another vs Ranganna And 2 Others on 22 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.1138 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 26.03.2010 in O.P.No.661 of 2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Mahabubnagar at Gadwal, the claimants have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. Heard Sri K. Venkatesh Guptha, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned standing counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company and perused the entire material on record.
3. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle.
4. The deceased is the unmarried son of claimant Nos.1 and 2.
5. According to the version of the claimants, on the date of accident, the deceased went for cooli work for loading and unloading of gravel in the tractor for construction of dam in the limits of Muchupally Village. While the deceased was sitting in the tractor, it was driven at a high speed, KS, J MACMA_1138_2010 2 resulting in deceased slipping down and receiving injuries and later died while undergoing treatment.
6. The learned Tribunal found that the deceased was working as a cooli for loading and unloading of gravel, however, since the policy according to RW1 was taken not for commercial purpose but for agricultural purpose, directed the owner of the tractor to pay compensation.
7. The claimants stated in their petition that the deceased was earning Rs.150/- per day by doing labour work. However, since no proof was filed regarding the income, the Tribunal considered the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum. Since the avocation of the deceased as cooli is not disputed, this Court is inclined to take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-.
8. While computing the compensation, the future prospects were not considered by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi1 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 as 20 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 1 2017 (6) 170 (SC) KS, J MACMA_1138_2010 3 to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.3,000+1,200). As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v Delhi Transport Corporation 2 , 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor which comes to Rs.2,100/-. Thus the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be of Rs.25,200/- (Rs.2,100X12). As per Schedule II of the Act, if the said annual contribution arrived at is multiplied with relevant multiplier to the age of the claimant i.e.18, the total amount comes to Rs.4,53,600/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled for the said amount under the head of loss of dependency.
9. As regards the consortium to be paid, claimant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Pranay Sethi (1 Supra). With regard to the funeral expenses and loss of estate, the claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
10. Therefore, the claimants are awarded the compensation as below:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.4,53,600
(2) Funeral expenses and Loss of Estate Rs.30,000
2
2009(6) SCC 121
KS, J
MACMA_1138_2010
4
(3) Loss of filial consortium Rs.80,000(for 1st and 2nd
claimants)
Total compensation awarded Rs.5,63,600/-
11. The claimants who are parents of the deceased were aged 60 years and 52 years when the accident had happened. They are illiterates and they would be now aged more than 70 years. In the said circumstances, keeping in view the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur3, Manuara Khatun Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh4 and Anu Bhanvara Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited 5, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent No.3/Insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellants/claimants in the first instance, and recover the same from the owner of the tractor/respondent No.2 thereafter.
12. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,72,000/- to Rs.5,63,600/-.
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.3
2004 ACJ 428 4 (2017) 4 SCC 5 Laws (SC) 2019 8 40 KS, J MACMA_1138_2010 5
(b) The claimants shall pay the court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation.
(c) The respondent/Insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the security.
(d) Amounts shall be apportioned in terms of the ratio decided by the Tribunal in the Award.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.07.2024 gvl