Gummadi Rajitha And Another vs The Apsrtc, Musheerabad, Hyd And 2 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6659 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD


                     M.A.C.M.A. No.1462 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 12-07-2005 passed in O.P.No.256 of 2002

by the III Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal (for short, the

Tribunal).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed the

claim petition against the respondents herein before the Tribunal

claiming compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs as legal heirs of the deceased

alleging that the deceased died in the accident occurred on 02-01-2002

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of one RTC bus

bearing No.AP 10 Z 1451, when the deceased was going on his

scooter bearing No.AP 36 D 8232 to go to his village Narsakkapalli

village of Warangal District.

3. In the claim petition, the 1st respondent filed its separate

counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended

that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are parents of the deceased filed

their counter supporting the claim of the appellants and stated that due

to family disputes, appellants filed the claim petition without TA,J MACMA No.1462 of 2006

consulting them and any how as they are also entitled to receive the

compensation, they prayed to allow the claim petition.

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the

crime vehicle only. So far as granting of compensation is concerned,

the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,29,000/- i.e. Rs.2,16,000/-

towards loss of income; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium;

Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses; and Rs.1,000/- towards transport

charges, payable by the 1st respondent with interest at 7.5% per annum

through out.

6. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the

appellants/claimants filed the present appeal, seeking for enhancement

of the compensation.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

and Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st

respondent-RTC.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends

that it is a case of death and at the time of accident, the deceased was

aged about 26 years and earning Rs.5000/- per month by working in a

rice mill as a hamali. Hence, he prayed for fair compensation.

9. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-RTC,

contends that the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and TA,J MACMA No.1462 of 2006

needs no interference and that in the absence of proof of income, the

notional income which was considered by the Tribunal in fixing

Rs.18,000/- per annum is just and proper and prayed to dismiss the

appeal.

10. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has

taken annual income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.18,000/- as he

was a non-earning member. Admittedly, in cases of absence of proof

of income, notional income at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month is

being considered as per the decision of the Supreme Court in

Ramchandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance

Insurance Co. Ltd.1, wherein, the Supreme Court held that in case of

labourer, minimum wages can be taken as Rs.150/- per day.

11. In spite of that, as per the decision of the Supreme Court

in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi2, the

claimants are entitled to be granted future prospects at 40%. Then her

monthly income comes to Rs.6,300/- (4500 + 1800) per month i.e.

Rs.75,600/- per annum; Considering the four number of dependents

of the deceased, 1/4th towards personal expenditure can be deducted

out of the said income, then it comes to Rs.56,700/- per annum.

Further, since at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 26

years, the Tribunal has rightly taken multiplier '17'. Hence, the total

'loss of income' in respect of the contribution towards her family

members comes to Rs.9,63,900/- (56,700 x 17).

2011 (6) ALD 75 (SC)

2017 (6) 170 (SC) TA,J MACMA No.1462 of 2006

12. Further, The Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards loss

of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, totaling

Rs.12,000/-. However, compensation granted under these heads is to

be re-determined since the deceased was a married person, the

claimants are entitled to be granted compensation of Rs.70,000/-

towards conventional head, which is covered all these heads, as per

the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (1 supra). Hence,

instead of granting Rs.12,000/- under all these heads, an amount of

Rs.70,000/- is granted to the claimants.

13. Further, being minor daughter of the deceased, the

claimant No.2 is entitled to be granted compensation of Rs.50,000/-

and being parents of the deceased, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled

to be granted compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) towards

loss of filial as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Magma

General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru

Ram3.

14. Except the above modification, the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.1,000/- towards transportation shall

remain unchanged. Therefore, the claimants are granted total

compensation of Rs.11,64,900/- (rounded off to Rs.11,65,000/- i.e.

Rs.9,63,900/- towards loss of income; Rs.70,000/- towards

conventional; Rs.1,30,000/- towards filial; and Rs.1,000/- towards

transportation.

2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 TA,J MACMA No.1462 of 2006

15. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,29,000/- to

Rs.11,65,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only).

The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per

annum. The appellants/claimants and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are

directed to pay deficit Court Fee. The 1st respondent is directed to

deposit the enhanced amount along with proportionate costs and

interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants and respondent

Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw the entire amount

proportionately as apportioned by the Tribunal in the impugned order.

No costs.

16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD Date: 06.11.2019 kvr