Telangana High Court

Varkala Ramulu 2 Ors vs B.Y.Reddy 2 Ors on 10 December, 2021

Bench: N.Tukaramji

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

               MACMA.Nos.30 of 2011 and 627 of 2011


COMMON JUDGMENT:


      Since common issues arise in both the Appeals, they are being

disposed of by this common judgment.


2.    MACMA.No.30 of 2011 is filed by claimants / petitioners and

MACMA.No.627 of 2011 is filed by 2nd and 3rd respondents / APSRTC

against the decree and award dt.08.10.2010 passed in MVOP.No.657 of

2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

L.B. Nagar, at Hyderabad.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as

per their array before the Tribunal.

4. The petitioners / claimants herein filed the above MVOP under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act')

claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for the death of Sri Varkala

Yadagiri in a motor accident dt.30.01.2008.

5. The petitioners / claimants are the parents and the elder brother of

Sri Yadagiri / deceased.

6. The case of petitioners / claimants in brief is that on 30.01.2008

when the deceased was proceeding on his cycle towards NTR Nagar,

Saroornagar, Raithu Bazar, a bus bearing Registration No.AP-10-Z-4690

of the APSRTC driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit NTR,J ::2:: macma_30 & 627_2011

the bicycle of the Yadagiri / deceased from behind, which resulted in

instantaneous death of Sri Yadagiri / deceased slumped and died

instantaneously. Thus, the claim petition.

7. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, granted

Rs.6,88,000/- with 7.5% per annum and held all the respondents jointly

and severally liable to pay compensation.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants / petitioners filed

M.A.C.M.A.No.30 of 2011 contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing

monthly income of Yadagiri / deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month by

ignoring the salary certificates / Exs.A.7 and A.8, and it erred in

deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenses and meager

amounts are granted towards the conventional heads.

9. On the other hand, the 2nd and 3rd respondents in MACMA.No.627

of 2011 contested that the Tribunal ought not to have held that the

accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus /

1st respondent, and should have held that there is contributory negligence

on the part of 1st respondent; further the monthly income of the deceased

at Rs.8,000/- and the compensation granted is excessive and the amounts

granted under the 'conventional heads', is also meager.

10. Now, the point arises for determination is,

(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driver of the driver of the bus? And NTR,J ::3:: macma_30 & 627_2011

(ii) Whether the compensation awarded to petitioner is just and proper?".

Point (i) :

11. The 2nd and 3rd respondents / APSRTC pleaded that the Tribunal

ought to have considered that Sri Yadagiri / deceased was proceeding

negligently on his bicycle without observing the traffic. Except this

pleading, the respondents could not make out any circumstances, much

less any fact in the cross-examination of eye-witness. The eye-witness /

PW.2 categorically deposed against the driver of the bus. The police,

after due investigation, filed Charge-Sheet / Ex.A.2 against the driver of

the bus for rash and negligent driving. It is undisputed fact that the bus

hit the cycle of Sri Yadagiri / deceased from behind. Consequently, it

shall be held that the evidence placed by petitioners is substantiating the

pleaded manner of accident and in the absence of any material, the claim

of contributory negligence on the part of Sri Yadagiri / deceased in the

accident, shall fail.

Point (ii) :

12. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was aged around 27

years, a bachelor, and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as Computer

Designer of Textiles in a private company, viz., Deep Jyothi Textile

Mills. No independent material is filed to prove the age of the Yadagiri /

deceased. However, considering the entries in Post-Mortem Report /

Ex.A.6, the age of the Yadagiri / deceased is taken at 27 years.

                                                                        NTR,J
                                   ::4::                 macma_30 & 627_2011

13. With regard to occupation, the appellants / petitioners filed

Original Diploma Certificate in Handloom Technology issued by the

Indian Institute of Handloom Technology / Ex.A.11; Original

Provisional Certificate issued by Indian Institute of Handloom

Technology / Ex.A.10; and got examined one B. Laxminarayana / PW.3,

an employee of the Deep Jyothi Textile Mills, who was authorized to

depose by the employer, stated that Yadagiri / deceased was working as

Textile Computer Designer in the said Mill and was earning around

Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, Salary Slips / Exs.A.7 and A.8 for the

months of October and November, 2007 shows net salary of Rs.12,420/-

and Rs.13,420/-, respectively after deductions. The only objection raised

by the 2nd and 3rd respondents is that the author of the Salary Slips /

Exs.A.7 and A.8 and the Certificate / Ex.P.11, were not examined. To

note the PW.3, during cross-examination, asserted that the Authorization

Letter / Ex.A.13 dt.16.07.2010 given by the Factory Management to give

evidence in the case and nothing is elicited to doubt the genuineness of

pay slips / Exs.A.7 and A.8 and the Certificate / Ex.P.11. Considering

these aspects and the qualification and pay slips / Exs.A.7 and A.8, the

net monthly salary of Sri Yadagiri / deceased, i.e., Rs.13,420/-, by

rounding off to Rs.13,500/-, is taken as monthly income. Duly, the

annual income would be (Rs.13,500 x 12) Rs.1,62,000/-.

14. In addition, as per the dictum of National Insurance Company

Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, future prospects of income shall be

(2017) 16 SCC 860 NTR,J ::5:: macma_30 & 627_2011

taken into account while considering the 'Loss of Dependency'. Since

Sri Yadagiri / deceased was aged 27 years and was in a job of permanent

nature, 50% of annual income shall be added towards future prospects of

income, i.e., Rs.81,000/- (50% of Rs.1,62,000/-). Resultantly, the annual

income would be Rs.2,43,000/-.

15. In the authority of Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport

Corp. & Anr 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the deceased

is a bachelor, 50% of the income shall be deducted towards personal

expenditure and the rest would be the contribution of the deceased to the

family. Consequently, the annual contribution of the Yadagiri /

deceased to appellants / petitioners would be 50% of Rs.2,43,000/-,

which is Rs.1,21,500/-.

16. For the relevant age of the Yadagiri / deceased, i.e., 27 years, the

multiplicand prescribed in Sarla Verma's case (1 supra) is '17'. If the

annual contribution is multiplied with the relevant multliplicand, the

resulting figure shall be awarded as compensation under the head 'Loss

of Dependency', i.e., Rs.1,21,500 x 17 = Rs.20,65,500/-. Therefore, this

amount shall be awarded as compensation to appellants/petitioners

towards 'Loss of Dependency'.

17. This apart, as per the Apex Court in the authority of National

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others3, the appellants

/ petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the conventional

ACJ 2013 Page 1409

(2017) 16 SCC 860 NTR,J ::6:: macma_30 & 627_2011

heads, viz., Rs.15,000/- towards 'Loss of Estate'; and Rs.15,000/-

towards 'Funeral Charges'.

18. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterating the

comprehensive interpretation to 'consortium' given in the authority of

Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors.4, in the

decision between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur

@ Satwinder Kaur and others5 fortified that the amounts for loss of

consortium shall be awarded to the parents as 'filial consortium' for the

loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their agony, love and

affection, care and companionship of deceased children.

19. Correspondingly, the appellants / petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein are

also entitled for 'filial consortium' of Rs.40,000/- each, totaling to

Rs.80,000/-.

20. Thus, in total, the amounts awarded under various heads are as

hereunder :

           DESCRIPTION                                    AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency                                         20,65,500.00
Loss of Estate                                              15,000.00
Funeral Charges                                             15,000.00
Filial Consortium to appellant /                            80,000.00
petitioner nos.1 and 2, i.e., Rs.40,000
x 2 = Rs.80,000/-
                               TOTAL                       21,75,500.00





    (2018) 18 SCC 130

Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020 NTR,J ::7:: macma_30 & 627_2011

21. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and

MACMA.No.627 of 2011 is dismissed, and MACMA.No.30 of 2011 is

allowed in the following manner :

(i) the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable

to pay Rs.21,75,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum with

proportionate costs, from the date of petition till date of realization;

(ii) the apportionment among the appellants/petitioners and the

permission to withdrawal shall be in terms of the tribunal award;

(iii) the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded amount

within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

(iv) Court Fee shall be paid on the enhanced compensation