Telangana High Court
B.Krishnaveni Kistamma And ... vs Apsrtc, Jbs, Secunderabad. And ... on 24 January, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2106 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants, who are wife and son of
the deceased P.Ramulu, aggrieved by the order and decree dated
07.05.2007 in O.P.No.1790 of 2005, on the file of the X-Additional
Chief Judge (FTC), Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day i.e.,
13.05.2005 at about 08:00 a.m., the deceased was standing by the side
of the road near Jayakrishna Hospital, Ramanthapur. At the time, an
APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 11Z 5765, coming from Uppal side,
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in high speed,
hit the deceased. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down
and sustained grievous injuries and he succumbed to the same while
being shifted to Osmania General Hospital. A case is Cr.No.285 of
2005 was registered by Police, Uppal against the driver of the
APSRTC bus.
3. The Tribunal, after examining the oral and documentary
evidence on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total
compensation of Rs.2,19,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Not satisfied with the compensation granted by the Tribunal, the
appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contended that
the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence adduced on behalf of
the claimants in proper perspective. It is contended that the deceased
was aged 60 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per
month by doing business and on agriculture. The Tribunal took his
monthly income at Rs.3,000/- only and thus caused great injustice.
The Tribunal had erroneously fixed the multiplier '8' instead of '9' as
per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI
TRANSPORT CORPORATION1. The Tribunal has also erred in
awarding Rs.2,000/- only towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- only towards
loss of consortium to petitioner No.1. The learned counsel further
contended that as per the decision of the Apex Court in NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PRANAY SETHI AND
OTHERS2, while determining the income, an addition of 10% of the
established income should be made where the deceased was
self-employed and was between the age group of 50 to 60 years.
Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel contends that
the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and
needs no interference.
2009(6) SCC 121
2017 ACJ 2700
7. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which
the accident took place has become final, as the same is not
challenged by the respondents.
8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the
Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month
and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses has arrived at
Rs.2,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier '8' assessed the
loss of dependency at Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 8). The Tribunal,
while determining the income, ought to have added 10% of the
established income, owing to the fact that the deceased was
self-employed and was between the age group of 50 to 60 years as per
the decision of the Apex Court in PRANAY SETHI's case (supra).
If the same is applied for computing the income of the deceased,
it comes to Rs.3,300/- (Rs.3,000/- plus Rs.300/- (10% of Rs.3,000/-).
After deducting one-third towards personal expenses, it comes to
Rs.2,200/- per month (Rs.3,300/- minus Rs.1,100/-) and Rs.26,400/-
per annum (Rs.2200/- x 12). If multiplier '9' is applied as per
the decision in SARLA VARMA's case, the loss of dependency works
out to Rs.2,37,600/- (Rs.26,400 x 9).
9. Thus, this court feels that the appellants are entitled to the
following amount towards compensation under various heads:
Sl. Name of Head Awarded by Awarded by this
No. Tribunal Court
Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.
1. Loss of dependency 1,92,000.00 2,37,600.00
2. Loss of consortium to 15,000.00 40,000.00
claimant No.1
3. Loss of Estate 10,000.00 15,000.00
4. Funeral expenses 2,000.00 15,000.00
TOTAL 2,19,000.00 Rs.3,07,600.00
10. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed-in-part by enhancing
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,19,000/- to
Rs.3,07,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.
from the date of order passed by the Tribunal i.e., 07.05.2007 till the
date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
Date: 24.01.2022
Lrkm
