Telangana High Court
Mettu Vasantha vs Megavath Santosh on 12 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
MACMA NO.778 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20-11-2017 in MVOP.No.1154 of 2015 on the file of Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT') cum Principal District Judge, Warangal, where under, their petition for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of Mettu Vidya Sagar in a road traffic accident was partly allowed by granting sum of Rs.6,34,800/- as compensation, the petitioners in the said MVOP have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act') and prayed for enhancement of the compensation on the following grounds.
2. The tribunal while appreciating the evidence placed before the Court failed to consider the actual income of the deceased and wrongly assessed the income as Rs.4,000/- per month. The petitioners having cited judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court between the 'Shiva Kumar M. Vs. 2 SSRN, J MACMA.No.778 of 2019 BMTC' 1 have claimed that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that in case of a painter, his monthly income can be fixed at Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- and in view of the age of the deceased, an additional amount @ 40% of the said income can be added towards future prospects. In such a case, the appellants herein were entitled to more than Rs.24 Lakhs. They have also claimed that the tribunal did not award an appropriate amount of compensation for loss of love and affection, thereby, sought for enhancement of the compensation. In support of their contentions, the appellants sought to rely on various judgments, which will be discussed at appropriate stage in the present appeal.
3. As could be seen from the impugned order, the appellants herein have filed the petition before the tribunal under Section 166 (1)(c) of M.V.Act on the ground that on 03-06-2015, the deceased after attending Church at Karunapuram Village, returned to his house in a Bus and when they reached Vigneshwara Granite at about 10.00 a.m., the driver of a Bore Well Lorry bearing No.AP 15N 4446 by driving it in a high speed, in a rash and 1 2017 (5) SCC 79 3 SSRN, J MACMA.No.778 of 2019 negligent manner dashed the deceased, thereby, he received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The appellants herein have filed the petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle and sought for Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.
4. Out of the three respondents, the driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company opposed the claim by contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and the claim made by the appellants herein was highly excessive and exorbitant, as such, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. The tribunal has framed the following three issues:
1. Whether on 03-06-2015 at about 10.00 hours near Vigneshwara Granite, Karunapuram Village, Ghanpur (W) Mandal, Warangal District, the driver of the Bore Well Lorry bearing No.AP 15N 4446, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident, resulting in death of the deceased Mettu Vidya Sagar?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what relief?
3. To what relief?
4 SSRN, J MACMA.No.778 of 2019
6. During the enquiry, the first appellant herein/petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1, Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the appellants. No oral evidence was adduced by the 3rd respondent but copy of the policy issued against the above said Lorry was marked as Ex.B1. The tribunal having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, accepted the contentions of the appellants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle and without accepting the claim of appellants that the deceased was earning Rs.16,000/- per month on a hypothetical assessment, considered the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month and having added 40% of the said income towards future prospects and after deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenditure of the deceased, who was a bachelor awarded an amount of Rs.6,04,800/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
7. The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company did not file any objections against the findings of the tribunal with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 5 SSRN, J MACMA.No.778 of 2019 offending vehicle and about the quantum of compensation and liability of the Insurance Company. Whereas, the petitioners/claimants have filed this appeal mainly on the ground that the tribunal has considered meager amount of income without considering the settled legal position.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants while placing reliance on a judgment in 'Shiva Kumar M. Vs. BMTC' supra, argued that there is evidence before the Court to believe that the deceased was a painter. In the above referred judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that income of a 45 year old House painter can be assessed as Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation. The learned counsel has further argued that the tribunal did not award appropriate sum under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, sought for enhancement.
9. As could be seen from the impugned order, it is quite clear that the appellants herein could not produce any proof about the actual income of the deceased. However, as per the findings recorded by the tribunal and as per the other record including inquest report marked as Ex.A2, the 6 SSRN, J MACMA.No.778 of 2019 occupation of the deceased was mentioned as painter. The accident in which the deceased was died on 03-06-2015 was not disputed.
10. In the above referred judgment relied on by the appellants herein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while disposing an appeal preferred by the claimants on an insurance OP, was pleased to observe that a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place doing his painting work could not produce any evidence of the actual income, since there may not be any employer, and as he does daily work sometimes, piece- rated work as well. In the absence of any serious dispute on the part of the respondent, the avocation and income, the Hon'ble Apex Court assessed the income of such a painter @ 15,000/- per month. The accident in the above referred case was in 2013. Whereas, in the present case, the death of the deceased was in 2015. Even if it is considered that the deceased was working in a town like Karunapuram and if 50% of the above referred income is considered, definitely, it would be Rs.8,000/- per month and if 40% of the said income is added as future prospects, it would be Rs.11,200/- per month and Rs.1,34,400/- per month. If 7 SSRN, J MACMA.No.778 of 2019 50% of the said income is deducted towards the personal expenditure, the annual contribution of the deceased could be Rs.67,200/-. Since the deceased was 27 years at the time of his death, the appropriate multiplier is '18' and it amounts to Rs.12,09,600/-. In addition to the said amount, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to Rs.12,79,600/-.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.6,34,800/- to Rs.12,79,600/- @ 7% per annum from the date of accident till the entire amount is realized.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
________________________ SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J 12th March, 2024 PLV