Telangana High Court
Meduri Rajini Prasantha Kumari vs M/S. Golden Travels on 4 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1592 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Appellants-claimants filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006 in M.O.P.No.427 of 2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District invoking the provisions of section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. Heard Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for the appellants. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence this Court appointed Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy who is the panel advocate of respondent No.2-Insurance Company readily available before this Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are:
On 07.12.2002, the deceased proceeded on a motor cycle from Kukatpally to go to BHEL. On the way when the motor cycle reached a place near Madinaguda Petrol Bunk, one tourist bus bearing No.KA-01-C-777 being driven by its driver, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed the motor cycle. After the hit the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The appellants who are wife and children of the deceased have filed 2 M.O.P.No.427 of 2003 claiming compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest and costs for the loss sustained due to the death of the deceased-Meduri Moses. The Tribunal allowed the M.O.P. in part and passed award directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay an amount of Rs.6,07,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and costs.
4. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently contended that the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 40 years and the appropriate multiplier is '15'. However, the Tribunal wrongly applied lesser multiplier '11', on the ground that the wife of the deceased, who is appellant No.1 is an employee, which is contrary to law.
5. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken gross salary of the deceased, on the other hand taken net salary and further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under loss of consortium, loss of estate and future prospects and also awarded meager amount under the head of future prospects.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal 3 below has rightly passed the impugned award and appellants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation.
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the record. It is an undisputed fact that the husband of the appellant No.1 namely Meduri Moses died due to the rash and negligent driving of the tourist bus bearing No. KA-01-C-777. In so far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal below has taken net salary of the deceased and not applied appropriate multiplier. It is also undisputed fact that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased is 40 years and appropriate multiplier is '15'. The gross salary of the deceased per month is Rs.8,109/-. The Tribunal ought to have taken gross salary of the deceased instead of taking net salary. It appears that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.8,109/- and Rs.97,308/- per annum. After deduction of 1/3rd of income towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.64,872/- and the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.64,872 x 15 = 9,73,080/-, which is the loss of dependency. The claimants are also entitled 50% of the same towards future prospectus which comes to Rs.4,86,540/- on the ground that the deceased was aged 40 years and he was a Government employee. Thus the total amount comes to 4 Rs.14,59,620/-. In addition to the above said amount, the claimants are entitled to Rs.36,300/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate of Rs.1,45,200/- towards consortium to spouse as well as parental consortium. Thus in all the appellants are entitled for Rs.16,41,120/- under all counts.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,07,000/- to Rs.16,41,120/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation along with interest within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per their respective share.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 04.11.2024 BV