Telangana High Court
Kum.A.Varsha vs A. Padma on 12 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.661 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
The appellants/claimants/petitioners filed the present appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the II Additional Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.230 of 2014, dated 21.01.2020, seeking compensation of Rs. 26,60,000/- on account of the death of A.Balreddy (father of petitioners), (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in an accident that occurred on 26.05.2012.
2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.229 of 2014 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the driver of the car. It is contended that on 26.05.2012, at about 11:00 PM the deceased was slowly driving the motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-R- 2831 from Dammaiguda to Champapet along with her children 2 NNR,J MACMA.No.661 of 2020 (petitioners) and when they reached near ECIL Ground, suddenly a Car bearing No.AP-29-BD-909 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed the petitioners' motor cycle. As a result, the deceased, her wife who was pillion rider and petitioners fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased and others were shifted to Tulasi Hospital for treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 27.05.2012. The Police registered a case in Crime No.360 of 2012 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of offending vehicle. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of Rs.26,60,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under various heads.
4. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal, was that petitioners lost their parent due to the accident and their future has become dark, and the petitioners has to depend on others for their day to day basic needs and prayed the Tribunal to award just compensation.
5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 - filed counter contended that he sold the car bearing No.AP-29-BD-909 to Harsha Auto Mall Private Limited to that extent, the said authorities issued hand over letter, dated 12.2.2012 in favour of him and in turn sold the said vehicle in favour of respondent No.1 3 NNR,J MACMA.No.661 of 2020 and registered in her name and delivery receipt dated 09.04.2012, vide ate pass receipt No.14992, dated 09.04.2012. The respondent No.1 has become owner of said vehicle and submits that respondent No.2 is no way concerned with the said offending car. Respondent No.3 - Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, also file counter- affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that driver of the offending car did not have valid and subsisting driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and the said offending vehicle was not road worthy to ply and further contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:
i) Whether A.Balreddy died in the accident took place due to the rash ad negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP-29-BD-909.?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, from whom and what quantum of amount?
iii) To what relief?4
NNR,J MACMA.No.661 of 2020
7. To prove the petitioners' case, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A8. RW1 was examined on behalf of the respondents, and Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy was marked.
8. After considering the material on record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.10,55,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
9. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the deceased was aged about 39 years at the date of accident and was working an Employee in M/s.Global Elecronics, Narayanguda and was earning Rs.13,000/- per month and was contribution the same to the welfare of the family, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the above averments and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by the deceased. In cross examination, PW1 to PW3 5 NNR,J MACMA.No.661 of 2020 were examined. Exhibits A.1 to A.8 were marked on behalf of petitioners. Learned counsel further contended that PW2 who is an eye witness to the accident narrated the said accident. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Car, but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased's income at Rs.6,000/- per month and also not awarded just compensation under the various head as per as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the accident was occurred on 26.05.2012 and the deceased was admitted in the hospital from 26.05.2012 till her death i.e., 27.05.2012 and the petitioners had incurred medical bills of Rs.17,000/-, which was marked as Ex.A8.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 6 NNR,J MACMA.No.661 of 2020
13. None appear for respondent No.1 & 2.
14. Heard Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Sri Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. Perused the material on record.
15. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that:
i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?
Point No.1:
16. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on 26.05.2012 alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the car driver and the petitioners lost their beloved father (deceased) in an unfortunate accident. The petitioners claim that the deceased was an Employee in M/s.Global Electronics, Narayanguda and was getting salary Rs.13,000/- per month, however there is no other documentary prove, such as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the deceased was earning Rs.13,000/- per month as claimed by the 7 NNR,J MACMA.No.661 of 2020 petitioners/claimants. But looking at the records available and the averments made by both the learned counsels before this Court, it is evident that was aged about 39 years who was hale and health and would earn more than the monthly income which the learned Tribunal has granted. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts, hence the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/- per month looked to be meager.
17. Hence considering the ground realities and deceased was aged about 39 years who was hale and health at the time of accident, hence following the law laid down judgment passed in Latha Wadhwa's case (cited supra), this Court is of the opinion that the deceased would obviously earn Rs.300/- per day by working in any Private Company, hence accordingly, the deceased income can be notionally taken as Rs.9,000/- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3 and considering the age of the deceased as 39 years, 2 2001(8) SCC 197 3 2017 ACJ 2700 8 NNR,J MACMA.No.661 of 2020 additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.12,600/- (Rs 9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.12,600/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as the dependants are two in number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.1,00,800/- (Rs.1,51,200/- (-) Rs.50,400/-).
18. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4, and considering the age of the deceased as 39 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '15'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.15,12,000/- (1,00,800/- x 15).
19. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment (cited supra).
20. Appellant No.1 and 2 are children of the deceased, the appellant No.1 & 2 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- 4 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 9 NNR,J MACMA.No.661 of 2020 (Rs.48,400/- x2) under the head of 'loss of parental consortium', as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram 5.
21. The petitioners incurred medical bills of Rs.17,000/-, which was marked as Ex.A8, which was not disputed, hence the said amount is also awarded to the petitioners.
22. In Sarla Verma's case (cited above), the Hon'ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of 'just compensation' observed as under:
"Post compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying, the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
23. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference 5 2018 (18) SCC 130 10 NNR,J MACMA.No.661 of 2020
24. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants would be entitled to as follows:
i) Annual Income (of the deceased)
Rs.9,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,08,000/-
ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) =
Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,200/- = Rs.1,51,200/-
iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,51,200/- (-) Rs.50,400/- = Rs.1,00,800/-
iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.1,00,800/- x 15 = Rs.15,12,000/-
v) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + Parental Consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.96,800 = Rs.1,33,100/-
vi) Medical Bills Rs.17,000/-
Total Rs.16,62,100/-
25. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.16,62,100/- as against the awarded amount of Rs.10,50,000/- by the learned Tribunal.
26. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7.5 % per annum and the same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the 11 NNR,J MACMA.No.661 of 2020 opinion that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5 % on the enhanced amount.
27. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.16,45,100/- Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 10,50,200/- to Rs.16,45,100/- with interest at the rate @ 7.5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
28. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J 12.06.2025 SHA