Telangana High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Lunavath Suko And 4 Ors. on 22 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.2191 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal against the Order and Decree dated 19.12.2005 in O.P.No.405 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, (FTC-I) at Khammam, whereunder the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- towards compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased in motor vehicle accident.
2. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri G.V.L Murthy, learned counsel for the claimants and perused the record.
3. The manner of the accident and the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained by him are not disputed by either 2 of the party. For the said reason, this Court is not inclined to discuss the said issue.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that in case of death where it is claimed that the deceased was a computer operator and earning an amount of Rs.4,500/-, the court below has taken his income notionally. He submits that in case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance1, the Hon'ble Apex Court even in case of a daily labourer without any evidence has taken income as Rs.4,500/- per month. He submits that the court below ought to have taken the said income. It is also submitted that under the other conventional heads, appropriate amounts were not granted by the court below, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. In response to that, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the petitioner without filing the cross 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 3 objections or an appeal cannot seek enhancement of the amount in the appeal filed by the insurance company.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases has held that even in the absence of cross appeal, the court can consider the case of the claimant and enhance the compensation. He has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surekha and others Vs. Santosh and others 2, wherein it is held that the claimants are entitled to just compensation even though there is no cross appeal or cross objection, wherein, the High Court had declined the request of the claimant as there was no cross appeal. He has also relied on Ramla and others vs. National Insurance company Limited and others3 and submits that without there being a cross appeal, the claimant can seek enhancement of compensation.
2
2020 ACJ 2156 3 (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 192 4
7. In this case, the deceased was working as a Mechanic. According to the claimants, he was earning an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month. No doubt, there is no evidence on record about the income of the deceased. However, this court applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa's case (stated supra) is inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 4 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 and occupation of the deceased, 40 percent of the income has to be included as future prospects. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma v Delhi Transport Corporation5, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, the annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants comes 4 2017 (6) 170 (SC) 5 2009(6) SCC 121 5 to Rs.37,800/- (Rs.3150X12). The relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '17'. Hence, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.6,42,000/-/- (Rs.50,400/-X 17).
9. Further, under the other heads, the court below has granted meager amounts. Relying on the ratio of Pranay Sethi (stated supra), the claimants are granted Rs.33,000/- towards conventional heads.
10. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation as below:
Head Compensation awarded (1) Loss of dependency Rs.6,42,000 (2) Conventional Heads Rs. 33,000
Total compensation awarded Rs.6,75,000/-
11. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by 6 the court below from Rs.2,16,0000/- to Rs.6,75,000/- 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 claimants shall pay the court fee on the enhanced amount of compensation.
(c) The 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.
_______________________ JUSTICE K. SURENDER 22.03.2024 mmr 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER M.A.C.M.A No.2191 OF 2012 Dt.22.02.2024 mmr