Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Parsa Mallamma , Mallavva on 21 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
MACMA.NO.2911 of 2019
AND
MACMA.NO.387 OF 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
There are two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals pending before this Court filed against the judgment and decree in MVOP.No.38 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, who was also acting as Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT'). As could be seen from the impugned order, the learned Chairman, MACT while allowing the claim petition filed by the petitioners in the above O.P. in part awarded a sum of Rs.11,90,000/- towards compensation on account of death of one Parsa Anjaneyulu (herein after will be referred as 'deceased') in a road traffic accident.
2. The petitioners in the said OP.No.38 of 2017 being not happy with the compensation filed MACMA.No.387 of 2021 under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act') with a prayer to enhance the compensation from Rs.11,90,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/-. The 3rd respondent in the 2 SSRN, J MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and MACMA.NO.387 of 2021 said O.P. i.e., New India Assurance Insurance Company Limited has filed another appeal vide MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 under Section 173 of M.V. Act and sought for setting aside the impugned judgment and exonerate the insurance company. Since both the appeals are against the same judgment with different prayers for the sake of convenience, both the appeals can be disposed under a common judgment. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the original petition.
3. The petitioners No.1 to 3 have filed MACMA.No.387 of 2021 on the ground that the tribunal failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence while assessing the income of the deceased and awarded meager amount of compensation as per the settled principles of law in various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, more particularly, judgment in 'Shiv Kumar' 1 case, where in, it was considered that income of a painter can be fixed at Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/- per month but in the case on hand, the deceased who was a vegetable vendor with agricultural lands, the tribunal failed to appreciate this fact and assessed his monthly income as Rs.10,000/- per month 1 2017 (5) SCC Page: 79 3 SSRN, J MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and MACMA.NO.387 of 2021 and no appropriate amount was awarded under other heads. The petitioners have also claimed that the deceased, who was aged about 45 years with good health, who was working as a Farm House Supervisor was earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the same could have been considered by the tribunal and the petitioners are entitled to claim 25% of the said income as future prospects, thereby, sought for enhancement of the compensation.
4. On the other hand, the insurance company while filing the other appeal under MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 has claimed that the tribunal having held that there was no evidence to believe the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no basis for coming to such a conclusion. Therefore, the compensation awarded in favour of the petitioners shall be reduced.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners strongly relied on the judgment between 'Shivkumar M. Vs. Managing Director, Bengaluru' 2, where in, the Honb'le Apex Court was pleased to observe that in case of 45 year old house painter was doing daily work/piece rated work can earn 2 (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 79 4 SSRN, J MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and MACMA.NO.387 of 2021 Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/- per month. He has also relied on another judgment between 'M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Aggidi Rajitha' 3.
6. As per the undisputed facts elicited from all the witnesses, it is quite clear that the deceased who was aged about 45 years, met with an accident on 15-10-2016 while proceeding to Singaraipally and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital. The petitioners being wife and children of the deceased have claimed that the deceased was working as a farm house supervisor. He was earning Rs.12,000/- per month at the time of accident. After collecting custard apples from a farm, he proceeded on his TVS XL bike and when he reached Mutrajpally road on Rajiv Rahadari, the driver of a Van bearing No.23 U 8469 by driving the same in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bike of the deceased.
7. The tribunal accepted the evidence of the witnesses produced by the petitioners and held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the Van driver. The tribunal though did not accept the claim of petitioners that the deceased was working as a Supervisor 3 Law Finder Doc Id # 2054898 5 SSRN, J MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and MACMA.NO.387 of 2021 in a Farm house assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- on the ground that even if the income of a daily wage labour @ 300/- is considered, the deceased being an able bodied person with 45 years could easily earn Rs.8,500/- for 26 working days and he being a vegetable vendor may have slightly higher income and could earn Rs.10,000/- per month. As per the record placed by the parties, the petitioner's wife and children were depending upon the earnings of the deceased. He was a vegetable vendor maintaining his own motor-bike.
8. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Shiv Kumar' referred supra, the income of the house painter can be assessed as Rs.15,000/- but here the petitioners could not place any material to believe that the deceased was working as a supervisor in a farm house, therefore, the income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.10,000/- per month, but the tribunal did not add any future prospects. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation' 4 and 'National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi 5', minimum 25% of 4 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 2017 ACJ 2700 6 SSRN, J MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and MACMA.NO.387 of 2021 the accepted income of the deceased can be added towards future prospects. Since there are four family members, 1/3rd of the income shall be deducted towards the personal expenditure of the deceased. The tribunal failed to award loss of consortium to the petitioners No.2 and 3.
9. Therefore, if the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.10,000/- per month and if 25% of the said income is added, the income of the deceased would be Rs.12,500/- per month and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. If 1/3rd of the said income is deducted towards personal expenditure, the yearly contribution of the deceased would be Rs.1,00,000/-. In view of the deceased being 45 years, the appropriate multiplier is '14', as such, monetary loss in view of the death of the deceased is Rs.14,00,000/-. The petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The petitioners No.1 to 3 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, thereby, they are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,50,000/- which will carry 7.5% of interest from the date of accident till the entire amount is realized.
7 SSRN, J MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and MACMA.NO.387 of 2021
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the petitioners in MACMA.No.387 of 2021 is allowed. The compensation amount was enhanced from 11,90,000/- to Rs.15,50,000/-. Consequentially, the appeal preferred by the insurance company vide MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.
________________________ SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J 21st March, 2024.
PLV