Telangana High Court
Kandukuri Naga Sree vs K. Sridevi on 15 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A. NO.1970 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been preferred by the dissatisfied petitioner in O.P.No.1118 of 2013 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short "M.V.Act.") assailing the order dated 05.08.2016 in the above said MVOP., whereunder the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,32,500/- as compensation on account of death of one Kandukuri Venkanna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in a road traffic accident.
2. The appellants have claimed that the Tribunal failed to appreciate their evidence in proper way and awarded insufficient compensation without considering actual employment of the deceased and the amount awarded under the other heads is also insufficient. The appellants have claimed that the deceased was a skilled carpenter and worked in different places. He was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. He was 32 years old at the time of accident. But, the Tribunal without considering all these aspects, assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- and 2 did not add any amount towards other heads. Therefore, the appellant sought for enhancement of compensation from Rs.8,32,500/- to Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. As per the material averments made by the appellants herein in the above referred MVOP, it was claimed that when the deceased was walking on the road side by pulling his TVS XL Moped, the driver of Maruti Alto car bearing No.AP-29-AH-7939 which was coming from Warangal and proceeding towards Hyderabad in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, due to which he received fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment. The above said M.O.V.P., has been filed against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellants have claimed that the deceased was a carpenter and earning Rs.25,000/- per month and sought for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, the Court while appreciating the evidence of the appellants, since they could not file any authenticated proof about the actual income of the deceased, was of the opinion that there was no evidence to believe that the deceased was a skilled carpenter and taking the age of the deceased into consideration and assessed a minimum amount of Rs.4,500/- per month as income of the deceased.
3
4. Learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while refusing to add any future prospects, held that since the appellant could not place any evidence to believe that the deceased was a permanent employee with fixed income, no amount can be added as future prospects, thereby awarded Rs.8,32,500/- by adding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- as loss of estate and loss of consortium.
5. It is true the appellants could not produce any documentary proof about the income of the deceased. However, as per the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A6, A7 the appellants have claimed that the deceased was a carpenter, the same was mentioned in the inquest report. The certificate issued by Vishwa Bramhana Sangham and identity card proves the actual occupation of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal could have accepted the same and awarded appropriate compensation. The Tribunal while discarding the said evidence was of the opinion that the certificate marked as Ex.A6 and identity card, cannot be accepted to be authenticated proof about the employment of the deceased and since the FIR about the accident did not disclose the occupation of the deceased as carpenter, these documents and 4 evidence of PWs 2 and 3 cannot be taken into consideration, thereby awarded the above referred compensation.
6. It is true as per the complaint lodged soon after the accident, the occupation of the deceased was shown as a coolie. In fact, the said report was presented by the relatives of the deceased with a view to inform the police about the accident where a young man of 32 years suffered fatal injuries and was struggling for life. The author of complaint may not be having any knowledge as to the details to be mentioned in the complaint and the FIR need not be an encyclopedia containing life history of the deceased. The intention of the author was only to inform the police about the accident, but not about the age, income, occupation of the deceased.
7. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 coupled with Ex.A6, A7 shows that the deceased was a carpenter and he was the manager of the family, consisting himself, wife, children aged about 16 and 12 and also he was maintaining his aged parents. Another circumstance that is established from the record is by the time of accident he was pulling his motorcycle towards a petrol pump. Therefore, these circumstances would suggest that the deceased was able to maintain himself and his family, consisting (5) other 5 persons, thereby the Tribunal could have considered the same and awarded an appropriate compensation amount.
8. As rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant, such a meager amount of Rs.4,500/- may not be sufficient for a family consisting (6) persons. Since the accident was occurred in the year 2013, even if the deceased was considered to be a coolie, he could have earned Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per month.
9. In view of the Judgment in Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation 1 and National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi 2, even a self employed person if he is below 40 years, 40% of the established income can be added towards future prospects. Since the deceased was to maintain, himself, his aged parents and two teenage children, definitely he will strive hard to improve the family conditions and his income. Therefore, if the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.6,000/- and if 40% is added, it would be Rs.8,400/- per month and out of Rs.8,400/-, if ¼ of the same is deducted, Rs.6,300/- per month can be considered as his contribution to the family is (6300x12) Rs.75,600/- and if it is multiplied by "15" the total loss 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 2017 16 SCC 680 6 of contribution would be (75600X15) Rs.11,34,000/-. The Tribunal having considered the other aspects, rightly awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and loss of consortium. Even as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case, the wife and children would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Therefore, the said compensation need not be disturbed.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.8,32,500/- to Rs.12,14,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of suit till the entire amount is realized. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU DATED 15.03.2024 PSSK