Telangana High Court
Farhadunnissda Begum vs V.Prabhakara Rao on 2 December, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.2857 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.248 of
2005, dated 09.05.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as
arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appellants are the claimants. The O.P. was filed by
the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by
the wife, children and mother of the deceased/Khaja
Nayeemuddin, claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on
account of death of the deceased. The said accident occurred
on 28.11.2004, while the deceased was going by walk to his
house at about 8.00 p.m. and when he reached Kanteswar
Chourasta, Nizamabad one Suzuki Motorcycle bearing No.AP-
25-G-6441 came from behind, driven by its rider in a rash and
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2857 of 2008
negligent manner, dashed against the deceased. As a result,
the deceased sustained multiple crush injuries to his head and
other parts of the body, and later succumbed to injuries on
29.11.2004 while undergoing treatment in Government
hospital, Nizamabad.
4. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered against
the rider of the motorcycle in Crime No.131 of 2004 on the
file of III-Town Police Station, Nizamabad, for the offence
punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. It is the specific
averment in the claim petition that the deceased was hale and
healthy and was earning Rs.6,097/- per month as a
Government employee.
5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents
disputing the age and income of the deceased. It was further
contended that there was no negligence on the part of the rider
of the motorcycle.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2857 of 2008
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, granted a compensation of
Rs.7,54,000/-.
7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal
for enhancement of compensation. So, the appreciation of
evidence would be with respect to the quantum alone.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the record.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants
that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the gross income
of the deceased as Rs.6,097/- per month and further erred in
calculating the income basing on the net salary as Rs.5,397/-
and therefore, prayed to consider the gross income of the
deceased and by applying proper multiplier and also to grant
future prospects and amounts under other Notional heads
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2857 of 2008
while calculating the compensation and prayed to allow the
appeal.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company contended that there is no
error or irregularity in the orders passed by the Tribunal so as
to interfere with the same and therefore, prayed to dismiss the
Appeal confirming the judgment of the Tribunal.
11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no
dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on
28.11.2004. Ex.A-5/salary certificate of the deceased disclose
that the deceased was earning Rs.6,097/- as on the date of the
accident, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2. The
deceased worked as Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nizamabad.
The Tribunal erred in not considering the gross salary of the
deceased while calculating the compensation and therefore, it
is just and necessary to consider the income of the deceased as
Rs.6,097/- per month.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2857 of 2008
12. Admittedly, the age of the deceased as on the date of the
accident was 35 years as per Exs.A-3 and A-4 i.e. inquest and
postmortem reports of the deceased respectively. As per the
proposition laid in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi & others1, the Government employee who is below the
age of 40 years, is entitled for 50% of future prospects. If 50%
future prospects is added, it would come to Rs.9,145.50 ps.,
(Rs.6,097+Rs.3,048.50 ps.). The number of claimants in this
case are five in number. Therefore, 1/4th has to be deducted
from the earnings of the deceased towards his personal
expenses. Thus, his contribution towards family would come
to Rs.6,859.125/- (Rs. 9,145.50 ps. (-) Rs.2,286.375 ps.). As
per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2, the
multiplier applicable is '16' for the age group of 31 to 35
years. If the annual income and multiplier '16' are applied,
then, the loss of earnings of the deceased would be
2017 ACJ 2700
(2009) 6 SCC 121
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2857 of 2008
Rs.13,16,952/- (Rs.6,859.125 ps. X 12 X 16), which is
rounded-off to Rs.13,17,000/-.
13. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra), wife, 3 children and mother of
the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards
consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
14. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation
under the following heads;
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,17,000/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to Rs.2,00,000/-
the wife, 3 children and mother of
the deceased)
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.15,47,000 /-
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total
compensation of Rs.15,47,000/- with costs and interest at the
rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 within
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2857 of 2008
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Claimant Nos.2 to 4 are minors as on the date of filing of the
claim petition i.e. in the year 2004 and now they have become
majors. Therefore, all the appellants are equally entitled for
the said amount and they are permitted to withdraw their
respective shares, on payment of deficit Court fee.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 02.12.2022
ajr
