Telangana High Court

Smt Sunitha And 4 Others vs Madhu Madasu, Anr on 11 April, 2022

Bench: P.Madhavi Devi

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                     M.A.C.M.A.NO.40 OF 2016


                          JUDGMENT

The appellants are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased,

Mr. Santosh Babu Appa, in the accident that occurred on 07.03.2013.

The vehicle involved in the accident was Tata ACE bearing No.AP-

09TA-6048 and the deceased died on the spot. At the time of death, the

deceased was 33 years of age and it was claimed that he was working as

driver on heavy vehicle and getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month

and batta of Rs.200/- per day and was contributing the same for the

welfare and maintenance of his family.

2. The appellants claimed Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation in

O.P.No.2867 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Vide order dt.03.01.2015, the Tribunal has considered the income of the

deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd thereof

towards his expenses and applying the multiplier at 16 and awarding

funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/- and loss of estate of Rs.10,000/-, the

Tribunal awarded spousal consortium at Rs.5,000/- and arrived at a total MACMA No.40 of 2016

compensation of Rs.7,93,000/-. Seeking enhancement of compensation,

the claimants are in appeal before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Jagathpal Reddy

Kasireddy, submits that for computation of compensation, the income of

the deceased should have been taken as Rs.15,000/- per month as

claimed by the claimants; or the amount applicable as per the Minimum

Wages Act at the relevant point of time; or Rs.6,000/- adopted by the

Tribunal, whichever is higher. He further submits that since the

dependents of the deceased are more than 4, the deduction towards

personal expenses should have been one-fourth as against one-third

adopted by the Tribunal and that the appellants are also eligible for 40%

enhancement in monthly income towards future prospects. He submits

that the children and mother of the deceased are entitled to parental and

filial consortium at Rs.40,000/- each. He also submits that the wife is

entitled to spousal consortium at Rs.40,000/- and all the appellants are

entitled to Rs.30,000/- (Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000) towards loss of estate

and funeral expenses and if all of these amounts are taken into

consideration, the appellants would be entitled to compensation which

would be more than the compensation claimed by the claimants before

the Tribunal. In support of all these claims, the learned counsel for the MACMA No.40 of 2016

appellants has placed reliance upon the following judgments which have

been rendered/reported after the date of Award of the Tribunal:

(1) Kala Devi and others Vs. Bhagwan Das Chauhan and others1

(2) Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others2.

(3) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others3.

(4) Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others4.

(5) Adam Indur Muttemma and others Vs. Rathod Reddia and others5.

(6) Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another6.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, Sri T. Mahender

Rao, is also heard and except for the quantum of monthly income of the

deceased as claimed by the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel

fairly admitted that the appellants are entitled to the amounts as claimed

under various heads as per the above cited judgments. He submitted that

if the monthly income of the deceased is taken at Rs.6,000/-, the claim

(2015) 2 SCC 771

(2018) 18 SCC 130

(2017) 16 SCC 680

2021 ACJ 2554

2015 (4) LD 585 (LB)

(2009) 6 SCC 121 MACMA No.40 of 2016

of the appellants and the amounts to be awarded to the appellants would

nearly be the same. He submitted that without there being any claim

before the Tribunal, the appellants cannot now claim the monthly

income of the deceased as per the Minimum Wages Act.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

this Court finds that the claim of the appellants is that the deceased was

earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, there is no basis for the same

and hence, the Tribunal has rightly not adopted it as the monthly income

of the deceased. But the Tribunal also has taken Rs.6,000/- as monthly

income of the deceased without any basis. In view of the same, this

Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to adopt the

monthly income of the deceased by applying the Minimum Wages Act.

Since driving is a skilled job, the minimum wages payable to a skilled

worker is to be adopted. However, if it is less than Rs.6,000/-, the

insurance company shall adopt Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) as

the monthly income of the deceased.

6. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla

Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another (6 supra), where the number of dependent family members is 4

to 6, the deduction from the monthly income of the deceased towards MACMA No.40 of 2016

personal and living expenses is to be 1/4th only. The respondents are

therefore directed to apply the same and calculate the monthly income

of the deceased accordingly.

7. Considering the nature of the employment and the age of the

deceased and in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram

alias Chuhru Ram and others (2 supra), an addition of 40% of the

established income has to be granted towards future prospects.

8. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal is 16 according to the age

of the deceased at the time of his death, i.e., 33 years. The said

multiplier is correctly adopted in this case as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and others

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (6 supra).

9. This Court deems it appropriate to further award Rs.30,000/-

towards loss of estate and funeral expenses (Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000)

with 10% increase as directed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others (3 supra). Therefore, Rs.33,000/- is directed MACMA No.40 of 2016

to be added to the compensation payable as it was not awarded by the

Tribunal.

10. Appellant No.1 being wife, appellants 2 to 4 being children and

appellant No.5 being mother of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/-

each towards spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial

consortium as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias

Chuhru Ram and others (2 supra) with 10% increase after lapse of

three years from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others (3 supra). Therefore, a sum of Rs.44,000/- to each of appellants 1

to 5 is also awarded as compensation.

11. Applying the Full Bench Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of

Judicature for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in

Adam Indur Muttemma and others Vs. Rathod Reddia and others

(5 supra), the respondents are directed to make payment of

compensation to the appellants even if such compensation exceeds the

claimed amount subject to payment of Court fee, if any, on such

enhanced compensation.

MACMA No.40 of 2016

12. In the light of the abovementioned discussion, the appellants are

entitled to the following amounts:

   Head                                  Compensation awarded

   (1) Income                            Rs.6,000 per month

   (2) Future prospects                  Rs.2,400 (i.e. 40% of the income)


   (3) Deduction towards personal        Rs.2,100 i.e. 1/4th of (Rs.6,000 +
       Expenses                          2,400)

   (4) Total income                      Rs.6,300 i.e. 3/4th of (Rs.6,000 +
                                         2,400)



   (6) Loss of future income             Rs.12,09,600 (Rs.6,300x12x16)

   (7) Funeral expenses                  Rs.16,500 (15,000 + 10% thereof)

   (8) Loss of estate                    Rs.16,500 (15,000 + 10% thereof)


   (9) Loss of spousal consortium        Rs.44,000 (40,000 + 10% thereof)
                                         payable to 1st appellant

   (10) Loss of parental                 Rs.1,32,000 (Rs.40,000 + 10%
        consortium                       thereof) payable to each of
                                         appellants 2 to 4)

   (11) Loss of filial consortium        Rs.44,000 (40,000 + 10% thereof)
                                         payable to 5th appellant

   Total compensation awarded            Rs.14,62,600 along with interest
                                         @ 7.5% per annum from the date
                                         of filing of the claim petition till
                                         payment.
                                                       MACMA No.40 of 2016

13. In the result, the award dt.03.01.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.2867 of

2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is modified by

awarding a total compensation of Rs.14,62,600/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs

sixty two thousand and six hundred only) with costs and interest thereon

at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of

realisation against both the respondents. Out of the said compensation,

appellant No.1 is entitled to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only),

appellants 2 to 4 are each entitled to Rs.2,20,866/- (Rupees two lakhs

twenty thousand eight hundred and sixty six only) and appellant No.5 is

entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and the other terms

regarding deposit, withdrawal, disbursement of compensation, keeping