Telangana High Court
Smt K.Saritha vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., on 7 December, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1097 of 2013
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.1294 of
2010, dated 07.01.2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV
Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.
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, claiming
compensation of Rs.23,00,000/- on account of death of the
deceased/K.Rajeswar Reddy, in the accident which occurred on
28.11.2009 at 6.20 p.m.. The said accident occurred, while the
deceased and his family members were proceeding from
Hyderabad in his car bearing No.AP-09-Y-2991 and when they
reached the outskirts of Turkapalli, the RTC bus bearing No.
AP-28-Z-3468 of Karimnagar Depot, driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner, dashed against the car. As a result, the
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1097 of 2013
deceased Rajeswar Reddy died on the spot and rest of the
occupants sustained injuries.
4. Basing on the complaint of the inmates of the car, a case was
registered against the driver of the Bus in Crime No.207 of 2009 on
the file of Shameerpet Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 338 and 304-A of IPC. The claimants are the wife,
children and parents of the deceased. It is the specific averment in
the claim petition that the deceased was working as an employee in
Electricity Department and was earning Rs.5,780/- per month and
was contributing the same to the family.
5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the
respondents/RTC disputing the age, income and occupation of the
deceased. It was further contended that there was no negligence on
the part of the driver of the Bus.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.12,29,964/-.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1097 of 2013
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 future prospects of the
deceased/employee and prayed to grant future prospects while
calculating the income of the deceased and while granting
compensation under other notional heads and prayed to allow the
appeal.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents/RTC 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.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1097 of 2013
11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no
dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on
28.11.2009. PW-1/Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased,
Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor son and daughter of the
deceased, Claimant Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased.
12. On perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is evident that
future prospects of the deceased are not taken into consideration
while calculating the compensation amount. There is no dispute as
to the age and income of the deceased. Exs.X-4 and X-5 are the
pay particulars of the deceased. The salary of the deceased for 28
days in the month of November, 2009 is Rs.8,141/- as per Ex.X-5.
It is important to note that the deceased expired on 28.11.2009.
Ex.X-4 is the pay bill particulars of the deceased for the month of
October, which discloses that the total gross salary of deceased for
the said month was Rs.9,014/-. It is pertinent to mention that the
Tribunal has taken into consideration only the net income of the
deceased but not the gross income. But, as per the propositions
laid down by the Apex Court, the gross income of the deceased has
to be taken into consideration.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1097 of 2013
13. The deceased was aged about 30 years as on the date of the
accident as per Exs.A-4 and A-5 (inquest and postmortem reports
respectively) and the income of the deceased can be taken as
Rs.9,014/- per month. If 50% is added towards future prospects, it
would come to Rs.13,521/- (Rs.9,014+4507). The claimants in this
case are five in number and therefore, 1/4th of his salary/income
has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased.
Thus, the deceased would be contributing 3/4th of his income to the
family. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another1,
the multiplier applicable is '17' for the age group of 26 to 30 years.
The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.1,62,252/-
(Rs.13,521 X 12). Therefore, the loss of earnings of the deceased
would be Rs.20,68,713/- (Rs.1,62,252 X 17 X 3/4).
14. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others2, wife, children and
parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards
(2009) 6 SCC 121
2017 ACJ 2700
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1097 of 2013
consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and another
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the
following heads;
1. Loss of dependency Rs.20,68,713/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to the wife, Rs.2,00,000/-
children and parents of the deceased)
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.22,98,713 /-
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total
compensation of Rs.22,98,713/- with costs and interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization, payable by the respondents/RTC within two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Appellant Nos.2
and 3 are the minor children of the deceased and they are entitled
to Rs.5,00,000/- each, and their respective shares shall be deposited
in any Nationalised Bank as fixed deposits till they attain majority.
The appellant Nos.1, 4 and 5 are equally entitled for the rest of the
amount i.e. Rs.12,98,713/- along with interest and they are
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1097 of 2013
permitted to withdraw their respective shares, on payment of
deficit Court fee, as the accident occurred in the year 2009.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 07.12.2022
ajr
