Telangana High Court
Gaikamle Shivananda And 4 Others vs G. Shiva Rama Krishna And Another on 20 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.2748 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Adilabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P. No.4 of 2006, dated 20.04.2009, the present appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard Sri C.Gurunam Singh, learned counsel, representing Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N.S.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2-National Insurance Company.
3. Brief facts of case:
3.1 On 13.04.2005 in the morning hours appellant No.1 and her husband G.Rohidas were proceeding from their village Chichdhari-Khanapur on scooter bearing No. AAO 4167 to Gudihatnoor and on the way at about 9-30 a.m., near Yamaikunta Village, they were hit by the lorry bearing No. AP.31.T.4511 which was coming from the opposite direction with high speed, as a result of which, appellant No.1 suffered 2 with grievous injuries and her husband Rohidas who was driving the scooter had sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Prior to the accident, the deceased-Rohidas was working as a labourer and earning Rs.3,000/- per month.
Thus, the appellants claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- under various heads against respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,69,500/- to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP.31.T.4511, the deceased died and at the time of his death, he was aged 35 years and doing labour work, however, the Tribunal without considering the same, awarded meager amount of Rs.1,69,500/- under various heads. He further contended that by virtue of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachanrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Allian. Company Limited 1, in the absence of any evidence, the income of the deceased can be taken at 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 3 Rs.4,500/- per month and that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards cost of litigation, as per the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi and another 2. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,69,500/- towards compensation under all heads. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed by them in this appeal.
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the records. It is undisputed fact that the deceased-G.Rohidas died in the accident occurred on 13.04.2005. The record shows that the Tribunal after considering the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A9 rightly held that both the deceased and the driver of lorry are equally responsible for the accident.
2 2014 (5) ALD 42 SC 4
8. According to the appellants, the deceased-Rohidas was aged 35 years and was working as labourer. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachanrappa (supra), in the absence of any evidence, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. Thus, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3, the appellants are entitled to future prospects @ 40% of his income, since the deceased was aged above 35 years. Then it comes to Rs.6,300/-. Since the dependants of the deceased are five persons, 1/4th of his income is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Then the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.4,725/- per month. Since the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4 would be "16". Then the loss of dependency would be Rs.4725/- x 12 x 16 =Rs.9,07,200/-. In addition thereto, the appellants are entitled for Rs.48,400/- each towards filial consortium as per Magma General Insurance 3 2017 ACJ 2700 4 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 Company Limited v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram 5, which comes to Rs.2,42,000/- and Rs.36,300/- towards funeral expenses. The appellants are also entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Mekala (supra). Thus, in all, the compensation is awarded as follows:
Sl.No. Description Amount awarded
Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 9,07,200-00
2. Funeral expenses 36,300-00
3. Filial consortium 2,42,000-00
4. Litigation expenses 10,000-00
Total: Rs.11,95,500-00
9. As stated above, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the deceased and the driver of lorry and culpability for the accident has been fixed at 50:50. Thus, the appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,97,750/-.
10. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,69,500/- to Rs.5,97,750/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The appellants are directed to deposit the deficit court fee before the Tribunal. On such payment court fee only, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO Date: 20.11.2024 pgp