Telangana High Court

Zalbunnisa And 2 Others vs M. Narayan Reddy And Another on 28 January, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.399 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 21.07.2006, passed in

O.P.No.59 of 2005 on the file of the II-Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad, the appellants/claimants preferred the

present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of

one Habeeb Fatima (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in a

motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.01.2001 at about 11.20

A.M. It is stated that on that day the deceased was going along with

her brother-in-law on a Scooter bearing No.AP AA 7353 from

Hyderabad to Nagarjunasagar and when they reached Urabavi

Thanda (Ramamurthy Nagar), a dog came across the road and in

order to avoid the same, the rider applied sudden brakes and in the

meanwhile another Scooter bearing No. A.P 11 7466 came from

behind at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the

Scooter, on which the deceased was a pillion rider, as a result of

which, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and she succumbed

to injuries while undergoing treatment in Owaisi Hospital,

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad. Basing on a complaint a case in Crime

GSD, J Macma_399_2012

No.4 of 2001 has been registered against the rider of the Scooter

bearing No.A.P 11 7466. It is stated that prior to the accident, the

deceased, who was aged about 35 years, was hale and healthy and

was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by doing tailoring work. Hence,

they filed the claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, who

are the owner and insurer of the Scooter bearing No. A.P 11 7466.

The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed written

statement contending that the compensation claimed is excessive. It

is stated that the claimants did not disclose whether their father i.e.,

the husband of the deceased is alive or not and in the cause title also

the name of the husband of the deceased is not mentioned and if the

husband of the deceased is alive, the claimants cannot claim to be

the dependents of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the petition.

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the accident took place on 22.01.2001 at about 11.20 A.M., due to rash and negligent driving of LML Scooter bearing No. AP 11 7466, by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

GSD, J Macma_399_2012

On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and

got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents, no oral

evidence was adduced, but Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal

held that the driver of the Scooter bearing No. AP 11 7466 was

responsible for the accident and that the appellants, along with their

father Abdul Rasheed, are entitled to compensation and accordingly

awarded an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of deposit, to be paid by the

respondents 1 and 2. Challenging the quantum of compensation

awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the

appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal has not taken into

consideration the occupation of the deceased as tailor i.e., skilled

worker and the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased

at Rs.15,000/- notionally. He also submits that as per the principles

laid down by the Apex Court in the recent decisions, the income of

the housewife is to be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month and the

claimants are also entitled to future prospects. Therefore, it is

argued that the income of the deceased may be taken into

consideration reasonably for assessing loss of dependency and

GSD, J Macma_399_2012

prayed to enhance the same. In support of his contention, he relied

upon the following judgments:-

1. Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others1

2. Hem Raj v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And others2

3. Kirti and another etc. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.3

4. Ramla and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others4

5. P.Yeshodamma and others v. T.Buchi Reddy and another5

The case against the 1st respondent was dismissed for default

vide Court order, dated 07.09.2011.

The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance

Company submits that since no documentary evidence has been

produced by the claimants to show that the deceased was a tailor by

profession and earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal has

rightly taken the notional income as per the Schedule in Section

163-A of the M.V. Act stating that the deceased was non-earning

member as she being a housewife. It is further submitted that the

compensation towards funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of

consortium has also been rightly granted by the Tribunal and the

same need not be enhanced.

AIR 2001 SC 3218

(2018) 15 SCC 654

AIR 2021 SC 353

AIR 2019 SC 404

(2004) 2 ALD 894

GSD, J Macma_399_2012

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 either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.

The short question that arises for consideration is "whether the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable"?

A perusal of the material available on record would show that

the deceased was a tailor and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, but

no documentary evidence has been produced by the appellants. In

Lata Wadhwa case (1 supra) the Apex Court had observed that

considering the multifarious services rendered by housewives, even

on a modest estimation, the income of a housewife between the age

group of 34 to 59 years, who were active in life, should be assessed

at Rs.36,000/- per annum. In the instant case, the deceased was

aged about 35 years. Hence, in view of the above judgment of the

Apex Court, the income of the deceased is to be fixed at Rs.36,000/-

per annum.

Insofar as the future prospects are concerned to the

housewives, the Apex Court recently in Kirti case (3 supra) made

certain general observations regarding the issue of calculation of

notional income for homemakers and the grant of future prospects

with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of compensation,

which can be summarized as follows:

GSD, J Macma_399_2012

"a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.

b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.

c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.

e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation."

In view of above said decision, and if the deceased had

survived, her skills as a matured and skilled housewife in

contributing to the welfare and care of the family and in the

upbringing of the children would have only been enhanced by time

and for which reason, the appellants shall be entitled to future

prospects at the rate of 40%.

GSD, J Macma_399_2012

After considering the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time

of the accident. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation6, the suitable multiplier

would be '16'. If the income of the deceased at Rs.36,000/- per

annum is taken as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Lata

Wadwa case (1 supra) and if 40% of the income is added to the

actual income of the deceased towards future prospects, the total

income of the deceased would be Rs.50,400/- per annum. After

deducting 1/3rd amount towards the personal and living expenses of

the deceased, the contribution of the deceased would be Rs.33,600/-

per annum. Applying multiplier '16', the total loss of dependency

would be Rs.33,600/- x 16 = Rs.5,37,600/-. The tribunal awarded a

sum of Rs.45,000/- under conventional heads. In National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others7, the Apex

Court held that "the reasonable figures on conventional heads,

namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses

should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively".

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case

(7 supra), the appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- under

conventional heads. Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to

Rs.6,07,600/-.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

2017 ACJ 2700

GSD, J Macma_399_2012

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/

Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum

of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation,

which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is

impermissible under law.

In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another8, the Apex Court

while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh9 held as under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above

the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been

claimed. Further the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of

legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount

consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the

benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

GSD, J Macma_399_2012

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from

Rs.2,05,000/- to Rs.6,07,600/-. The enhanced amount will carry