Telangana High Court
D. Hanumantha Rao, vs A.P.State Road Transport ... on 12 December, 2022
Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2363 of 2014
JUDGMENT :
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
XVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge at Hyderabad vide order dated 16.06.2010 in O.P. No. 2412 of
2008, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.
2. On 28.06.2008, while the deceased, D. Sathish Kumar, was
proceeding on his motorcycle from SBH, Gunfoundry towards Abids,
the offending vehicle i.e., RTC bus bearing No. AP 28Z 1800, owned
by respondents, being driven by its driver at high speed in a rash
and negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed the
motorcycle. As a result, the deceased fell down, received grievous
injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the
deceased was 25 years, B.Sc. Computer Science graduate, working
as Home Tutor and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore,
they laid a claim for Rs.10.00 lakhs towards compensation under
different heads.
3. The learned Tribunal, considering the claim of the appellants,
counter filed by the respondents-RTC and on evaluation of oral and
documentary evidence, allowed the O.P. in part awarding a total
compensation of Rs.2,36,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be
deposited by the respondents within one month from the date of said
order.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents-RTC. Perused the material
available on record.
5. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants-
claimants has argued that the deceased was working as Home Tutor
and earning Rs.5,000/- per month as he was B.Sc. Computer
Science graduate as seen from Exs.A.7 & A.8, and as he was highly
qualified person, the fixation of monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.3,000/- is meagre. Further, relying on the decision of the Apex
Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others1, the learned counsel has contended that
to the existing income of the deceased, 40% ought to have been
added towards future prospects. Even the amount granted under
conventional heads is too meagre and needs enhancement as per the
decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the learned counsel
seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents-RTC, has contended that even though there was no
2017 ACJ 2700
proof as to the monthly income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal
has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no
interference by this Court.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident
and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its
driver in causing the accident on 28.06.2008 that resulted in the
death of the deceased. As regards quantum of compensation, as
seen from the record, the claimants-appellants had claimed that the
deceased was working as Home Tutor and earning Rs.5,000/- per
month. However, no proof to that effect was filed by them. But the
fact remains that the deceased was highly qualified as seen from
Exs.A.6, A.7 & A.14. Therefore, considering the qualification of the
deceased and his age, the fixation of his income at Rs.3,000/- per
month by the tribunal is on lower side. Keeping in mind the
qualification of the deceased, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. Since the deceased was 25
years, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra),
to the actual income of the deceased, 40% needs to be added towards
future prospects. Hence, the future income of the deceased comes to
Rs.6,300/- per month (Rs.4,500 + Rs.1,800 being 40% thereof). As
the deceased was bachelor, after deducting 50% therefrom towards
personal expenses of the deceased, the net monthly future income of
the deceased is Rs.3,150/- and the annual cartridge contribution to
the family comes to Rs.37,800/-. As per the decision of the Apex
Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another2, considering the age of the deceased as 25 years, the
appropriate multiplier is '18'. Therefore, taking the same into
consideration, the total loss of dependency of the appellants comes to
Rs.6,80,400/-. Thus, under the head of loss of dependency, the
compensation is enhanced to Rs.6,80,000/-, as against
Rs.2,34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In addition thereto, under
the conventional heads, as against the amount of Rs.2,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are granted Rs.33,000/- as
per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). That
apart, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General
Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and
others3, the claimants, being the parents of the deceased,, are
granted filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Thus, in all, the
compensation is enhanced to Rs.7,93,400/-, as against
Rs.2,36,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.2,36,000/- to Rs.7,93,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry
interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of order passed by the
Tribunal till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondents
2009 (6) SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall be
apportioned between the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered
by the Tribunal. The respondents shall deposit the amount within
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the said amount.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
12.12.2022
tsr
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2363 of 2014
DATE:12-12-2022
