Telangana High Court
The Tsrtc, Hyderabad 1 Other vs S Lilavathi, R.R.Dist 2 Others on 16 February, 2022
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy, M.Laxman
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
MACMA.NO.3300 OF 2016
JUDGMENT (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice M.Laxman)
1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 25.07.2016 in MVOP.No.312 of
2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - Chief Judge, City Civil courts,
Hyderabad, wherein and whereby, the claim of the respondents/claimants for grant of
compensation for death of the deceased, was allowed granting compensation of
Rs.37,17,000/-.
2. The Compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads is as under:
1. Loss of dependency -- Rs.36,00,000.00
2. Transportation charges -- Rs. 10,000.00
3. Cloth damages -- Rs. 2,000.00
4. Funeral expenses -- Rs. 25,000.00
5. Love and affection -- Rs. 30,000.00
6. Loss of estate -- Rs. 50,000.00
---------------------------
Tota: -- Rs.37,17,000.00
----------------------------
3. The present appeal has been filed by the respondents in the claim petition i.e.,
i.e.,The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation), questioning the
quantum.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Corporation submits that the
Tribunal awarded the loss of future earnings of the deceased, treating him as the
electrician. According to the learned counsel, even if the occupation of the deceased is
taken as an electrician, the minimum wages that would be payable is only Rs.8,079/-
per month as on the date of the accident, but the Tribunal instead of granting minimum
wages, in the absence of any concrete evidence, fixed the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.25,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the Corporation has placed
reliance on G.O.Ms.No.11, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab.II)
Department dated 17.01.2012 to support his contention with regard to minimum wages.
5. As seen from the impugned judgment, the only evidence relied upon by the
Tribunal for awarding loss of future income, is the evidence of P.W.5, who was the
President of Bhagyanagar Old City Electrical Contractors Association and Ex.A-7, which
is the certificate issued by P.W.5.
6. A reading of the evidence of P.W.5, as well as Ex.A-7 would only show that
the profession of the deceased was electrician. In fact, no technical qualifications have
been filed to show that the deceased was a qualified electrician. However, even if the
deceased is taken as an electrician, in the absence of any other evidence with regard to
his earning from the profession of electrician, as per G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 17.01.2012, as
relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, he would be entitled to
minimum wages that would be payable to an electrician as on the date of his death.
7. G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 17.01.2012 would clearly show that the minimum wages
payable to an electrician, during the year 2012 was Rs.8,079/-, and if the same is
rounded off, the monthly earnings of the deceased can be treated as Rs.9,000/-, and
the same can be taken for awarding compensation towards loss of income.
8. It is also the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation
that the Tribunal, towards future prospects, has taken 50% of that earnings, instead of
40% and the same is contrary to the law laid down by Apex Court in NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. PRANAY SETHI1.
9. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, in a
case of a private employee, and having no fixed income, the percentage of income that
(2017)16 SCC 680
should be taken for future prospects, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay
Sethi's case (1 supra) is 40% of the of the established earnings.
10. In the light of the above discussion, if the earnings of the deceased is taken
as Rs.9,000/- per month, 40% towards future prospects would come to Rs.3,600/- and
his totally monthly earnings would come to Rs.12,600/-, and the annual income comes to
Rs.1,51,200/-.
11. There is no dispute that the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, as per the
judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DTC2, 50% should be deducted
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. 50% of Rs.1,51,200/- comes to
Rs.75,600/-. The appropriate multiplier, as rightly applied by the Tribunal to the age of
the deceased, is 16. Thus the total amount towards loss of future income comes to
Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.75,600/- x 16).
12. The Tribunal granted Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses instead of
Rs.15,000/- as fixed by the Apex court in Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra) and same
requires to be modified.
13. The Tribunal also granted Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection, which is
contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD. v. NANU RAM3, wherein Rs.50,000/- was fixed towards love and affection, and
therefore, the amount under this head requires modification.
14. Further the Tribunal granted Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate, which is also
contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra), wherein
only Rs.15,000/- was granted for loss of estate. Hence, the amount under this head is
also required to be modified.
(2009)6 SCC 121
(2018)18 SCC 130
15. The Tribunal has not granted any compensation towards filial consortium to
the parents of the deceased as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Nanu Ram's case
(3 supra). Hence, as per the said judgment, each of the parent is entitled to Rs.44,000/-
i.e., both the parents are entitled to Rs.88,000/- towards loss of filial consortium.
Accordingly the said amount is granted.
16. Thus the total compensation granted under different heads is as under:
1. Loss of future income Rs.12,09,600.00
2. Transport charges Rs. 10,000.00
3. Damages to cloths Rs. 2,000.00
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000.00
5. Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000.00
6. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000.00
7. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 88,000.00
------------------------------
Rs.13, 89,600.00
--------------------------------
17. The interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% is modified to 8% per annum.
18. The compensation granted by the Tribunal at Rs.37,17,000/-, is thus reduced
to Rs.13,89,600/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs, eighty nine thousand, six hundred only) and
the claimants are entitled to interest on the said amount at the rate of 8% per annum
from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. In all other aspects, the award of the
Tribunal is confirmed.
19. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
20. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to
costs.
------------------------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
-------------------------------------------
M.LAXMAN,J
DATE:16--02--2022
AVS
