Telangana High Court
R. Venkatesh vs Md. Sardar on 26 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1780 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:-
Heard Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy Gopireddy, learned counsel for the appellants, and Smt. A. Malathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants, aggrieved by the order, dated 19.08.2016 passed in O.P.No.1299 of 2009 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').
3. The claim petition was filed by the claimants on account of the death of one R.Muthamma in a road traffic accident which took place on 31.08.2008 at 9 P.M. when she was proceeding from Chandampet towards Narsingi Village on NH7 when she was struck by lorry bearing No.AP02T 6679 which was coming from Nizamabad road. The deceased died while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital on 07.09.2008. The Tribunal upon examining the evidence adduced by both the parties has awarded compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- as against amount of Rs.2,00,000/- sought by the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.
2
4. In grounds of appeal, the appellants contended that the Tribunal ought not to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month without adding future prospects and that the Tribunal granted meager amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation. Further, the Tribunal did not grant any amounts towards loss of love and affection. Lastly, the appellants sought interest at 9% per annum instead of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal.
5. The accident occurred way back in the year 2008. The deceased was aged about 60 years and she was doing labour work. Her daily income was taken at Rs.100/- per day and taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1's case, the income of a daily labourer was taken at Rs.4,500/- per month and therefore, the same be taken. As per the police records marked under Ex.A2 charge sheet and Ex.A3 inquest report, the deceased was working as an agricultural labour. Even in case the deceased was a labour, her income would not be on par with the labourers who would do work on daily basis throughout the year. Agriculture labour work is seasonal and therefore, no error can be 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 3 found on the part of the Tribunal for taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.36,000/- per year.
6. The age of the deceased is shown to be 60 years. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2, if future prospects at 10% i.e. Rs.3,600/- is added to the annual income, the net annual income comes to Rs.39,600/- (Rs.36,000/- + Rs.3,600/-). Since there are two dependents on the deceased, if 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.26,400/-. If the said amount is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier '9' as per Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3, the total compensation under the head of loss of dependency would be Rs.2,37,600/-. In addition, the appellants are entitled to payment of compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium.
7. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,92,000/- to Rs.3,07,600/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and 2 2017 ACJ 2700 3 (2009)6 SCC 121 4 severally. Since appellant No.1 died, his apportioned amount is further apportioned among his L.Rs. in equal shares. On deposit of the enhanced compensation, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount in proportion to their shares awarded by the Tribunal and this Court, without furnishing any security. However, the appellants are directed to pay the deficit court-fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_______________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 26.06.2025 ssp