Telangana High Court
P.Hanuman Prasad And Another vs P.Nagendra Aswath And Another on 3 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the award dated 10.10.2014, passed in O.P.No.878 of 2010 by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Heard Sri V.Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that on 24.12.2012, claimant No.2 along with her daughter Pandurangi Mrudhula @ Pandurangi Mrudula Rani, who was studying M.B.B.S. II year in Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal and two others friends of his daughter were coming to Hyderabad in their car bearing No.AP 29 AF 9285 and when they reached Raghunathpally Village near Brundhavan Dabha, the driver of the car drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed. Due to which, the car turned turtle, as a result, the daughter of the claimants died on the spot. 2
LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015
4. The police, Raghunathapally, registered a case in Crime No.125 of 2009, for the offences under Sections, 304-A and 337 of IPC.
5. The claimants have filed O.P.No.878 of 2010 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of the death of their daughter in the accident. It was contended that the deceased was studying M.B.B.S. II Year at Kakatiya Medical College and they have lost their daughter, who was meritorious student, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle; and that if the deceased had completed her graduation, atleast she would have earned a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month by working in hospital or setting up own practice.
6. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company has filed counter denying age of the deceased as well as allegation that the deceased was meritorious student and was studying M.B.B.S. II Year at Kakatiya Medical College. It was specifically denied that the deceased would have earned a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. It is finally contended that the amount claimed by the claimants was exorbitant.
3
LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015
7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 24.12.2009 has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., car bearing No.AP 29 AF 9285 and whether the deceased P.Mrudula died due to the said accident?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, to what quantum and whether crime vehicle was owned by first respondent and insured with second respondent and what is the liability of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
8. Before the Tribunal, to substantiate the claim, the claimants examined themselves as PW1 and PW2 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, none was examined, however, Ex.B1/copy of Insurance Policy was marked.
9. The Tribunal, on due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, vide order dated 10.10.2014, has partly allowed the appeal and awarded a sum of Rs.14,18,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the compensation amount, the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation.
4
LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015
10. Learned counsel for the claimants had contended that the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month, which is very meager and the Tribunal should have atleast considered a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as the income of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal did not award any compensation towards consortium. Further, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 1, the Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- to each claimant towards consortium. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company had contended that on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation by taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- and that there are no grounds to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier '19' instead of '18'. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 1 2017 (6) 170 (SC) 5 LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015
12. Perusal of the record would disclose that the deceased Mrudhula Rani was a medical student, studying M.B.B.S. II year at Kakatiya Medical College and died in the accident that took place on 24.12.2009. The Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month and since the deceased was bachelor, 50% of her income was deducted towards personal expenses.
13. Learned counsel for the claimants had placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.26871 of 2019, dated 05.07.2023 in Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through Lrs and others, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the monthly earning of medical student at Rs.25,000/- by following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another. Further, he relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in CMA.No.1800 of 2019 and batch, wherein, the Madras High Court has considered the monthly earnings from Engineering student at Rs.18,000/-.
14. Considering the above judgments, this Court is of the considered view that monthly earning of the deceased can be 6 LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015 taken at Rs.25,000/- as the deceased was pursuing M.B.B.S II year at Kakatiya Medical College as on the date of her death.
15. The deceased was MBBS II Year student as on the date of accident and she has to pursue three more years for completing the graduation. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment referred, 10% of monthly income has to be deducted for each uncompleted year. Accordingly, if 30% of monthly income of the deceased is deducted, then the income comes to Rs.17,500/- per month. Having regard to the age of deceased as 20 years as on the date of accident, 40% of her income has to be included as future prospects as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case supra and the monthly income would come to Rs.24,500/- {17,500 + (40% of 17,500)}.
16. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case supra, in the case of bachelor, 50% of her income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, then the income of the deceased would come to Rs.12,250/- per month and the annual income comes to Rs.1,47,000/-. As the deceased was aged 20 years as on the date of accident, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi 7 LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015 Transport Corporation and another 2 the relevant multiplier is '18', however, the Tribunal has erroneously considered the multiplier as '19'. As per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the said annual contribution arrived is multiplied with relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased i.e. '18', the total amount comes to Rs.26,46,400/- (1,47,000 x 18). The claimants are entitled for the said amount under the head of loss of dependency.
17. Further, as per ratio laid down in case of Pranay Sethi's case supra, each claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and further, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
18. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation as below:
Sl.No. Name of the Head Compensation Compensation awarded by the awarded by this Tribunal Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,68,000/- Rs.26,46,400/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
3. Loss of consortium - Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- to each claimant)
4. Funeral expenses RS.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
5. Total Rs.14,18,000/- Rs.27,56,400/- 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 8 LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015
19. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.14,18,000/- to Rs.27,56,400/-.
(a) The awarded amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The respondents shall deposit the amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 03.01.2025 Dua 9 LNA, J M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015 03.01.2025 Dua