Telangana High Court
Dadi Lachavva Lachamma 2 Others vs Md. Ankoos Ali Another on 14 December, 2021
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1872 of 2007
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the Claimant, aggrieved of the order
and decree dated 28.03.2005 in O.P.No.784 of 2004 on the file of
I-Additional District Judge (MACT), Karimnagar.
2. On 04.09.2004, due to the rash and negligent driving of Auto
trolley bearing No.AP-15-W-1602 by its driver, the Auto Trolley
dashed against the road divider and turned turtle, due to which, the
deceased Balaiah fell down from it, sustained severe injuries and
succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment.
3. The Tribunal, on examining the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2
and DW-1 and documentary evidence in Exs.A-1 to A-3 and B-1 and
B-2, allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,64,000/-
along with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization, to be deposited within one month
from the date of said order. Seeking enhancement of compensation,
the appellants-claimants have filed this appeal.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants-Claimants
contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence
adduced on behalf of the claimants in proper perspective. It is
GSD, J
MACMA.No.1872 of 2007
contended that the deceased was aged 45 years and was earning
Rs.5,000/- per month as a Shephered, however, the trial Court
took his monthly income as Rs.1,500/- only and thus caused great
injustice. The Tribunal has also erred in awarding Rs.10,000/-
only towards consortium instead of Rs.15,000/- and further
awarded Rs.5,000/- only to each of Claimant Nos.2 and 3
towards love and affection instead of awarding Rs.10,000/- each.
It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding
any amount towards loss of estate, which could be Rs.15,000/-.
Accordingly, prayed for enhancement of compensation.
6. In this case, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company has mainly raised two grounds;
(1) that the Driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving
licence and (2) that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger
at the relevant point of time. The Tribunal, while answering the
said contentions, has categorically held in para 8 of the order as
under :
"8. Coming to the question of who should pay the
compensation, Rw1 was examined on behalf of the
respondent No.2 company. He stated that they
appointed an investigator who submitted a report
and according to the said investigation, R.1 was not
holding valid driving licence by the date of the
accident and the same is mentioned in the charge
sheet. It is further contended that R.2 is not liable to
GSD, J
MACMA.No.1872 of 2007
pay any compensation as the deceased was not
going along with the goods. In the cross-
examination, Rw.1 admitted that a person holding
learner's licence is also eligible to drive the vehicle.
The contention of R.2 regarding the absence of
driving licence for R.1, in the charge sheet would
not discharge the burden which is placed on R.2.
The evidence necessary for the proof of the contents
of the charge sheet is not adduced by R.2. Hence,
the contents of the charge sheet cannot be taken as
conclusive proof of the facts mentioned therein. So
far as the contention of R.2 that the deceased was
not the owner of the goods is concerned, a perusal
of Ex.P.1, which is the attested copy of F.I.R. would
be helpful. It is mentioned as Ex.A.1 that the
deceased was travelling along with sheep. Rw.1
also admitted that a premium was paid for one
employee besides the driver. But anyhow from the
facts as revealed by Ex.A.1, it can be understood
that the deceased was travelling along with goods.
It was not suggested to Pw.2 that the deceased was
not going along with the goods. It was not brought
on record that there was some other person along
with the deceased in the auto, in which case alone, it
can be inferred that the deceased was not travelling
in the vehicle as an authorized representative of the
owner of the goods. Hence, in view of the above,
R.2 is also found liable for the compensation."
In view of the above categorical findings by the learned Tribunal,
I do not find merit in the contentions advanced by the learned
Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
GSD, J
MACMA.No.1872 of 2007
7. The earnings of the deceased can be taken as Rs.4,000/- per
month and future prospects @ 25% be Rs.1,000/-. If 1/3rd of
earnings is deducted towards personal expenses, the net monthly
earnings of deceased comes to Rs.3,333/-. As the deceased was
aged 45 at the time of death, the appropriate multiplier would be
14. Thus, loss of future income/dependency comes to
Rs.5,59,944/- (Rs.3333 x 12 x 14).
8. Thus, this Court feels that the appellants are entitled to the
following amount towards compensation under various heads:
Sl. Name of Head Awarded by Awarded by this
No. Tribunal Court
Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.
1. Loss of earnings 1,44,000.00 5,59,944.00
2. Loss of consortium to 10,000.00 40,000.00
Claimant No.1
3. Loss of love and affection 5,000.00 40,000.00
to Claimant No.2/minor.
4. Loss of filial consortium 5,000.00 40,000.00
to Claimant No.3/mother
of deceased.
5. Loss of Estate ------ 15,000.00
6. Funeral expenses ------ 15,000.00
TOTAL 1,64,000.00 Rs.7,09,944.00
GSD, J
MACMA.No.1872 of 2007
9. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,64,000/- to
Rs.7,09,944/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a.
from the date of order passed by the Tribunal i.e. 28.03.2005 till the
date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and
severally. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned amongst
the claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The claimants
shall pay deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the
claim is for Rs.3,29,000/-. If the deficit court fee is not paid as per
Rule 475 of M.V.Rules before the Tribunal, the claimants are not
entitled for execution of Award in respect of enhanced compensation.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
Date: 14.12.2021
ajr
