Guduru Satyanarayana vs Ene Managamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 320 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.2616 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the order dated

27.07.2007 in O.P.No.2567 of 2005, on the file of the V-Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court)-cum-XIX Additional

Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad (for short 'the

Tribunal'), wherein the claim of the appellants herein was allowed-in-

part, awarding compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest at 7% per

annum from the date of the petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company. Perused the record.

3. The appellants herein filed the claim application seeking

compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of death of the deceased

Guduru Ashok, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

17.08.2005. Claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and

claimant No.3 is the unmarried sister of the deceased. According to

the claimants, at the time of accident, while the deceased was standing

at Peddakandukuru bus stage in order to go to Alair, at about 06:15

pm., a jeep (cruiser), bearing No.AP-29-T-3840, driven by its driver

in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, dashed against the

deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries.

Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, where he succumbed

to injuries on 19.08.2005 while undergoing treatment. It is pleaded by

the claimants that the deceased was aged 20 years and was unmarried

at the time of accident and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by

working as Power Loom Weaver.

4. The first respondent-owner of the jeep (cruiser) remained

ex parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent-insurer filed a

counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the

compensation.

5. On the strength of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues for trial:

(i) Whether the death of the deceased on 17.08.2005 at about 06:15 pm., is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep (cruiser) bearing No.AP 29-BT-3840 by its driver?

(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to

A-5 were marked on behalf of the claimants. No evidence was

adduced on behalf of the insurer.

7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. On issue No.2, the

Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation

of Rs.2,60,000/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said

amount with interest at 7% per annum. Not satisfied with the award,

the claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation from Rs.4 lakhs to Rs.8 lakhs. The claimants have filed

I.A.No.1 of 2021 under Order VI Rule 17 seeking permission to

amend the claim application. Having regard to the fact that the

claimants are seeking compensation by invoking the provisions of a

welfare legislation, it is considered that the claimants can be permitted

to amend the claim as proposed. I.A.No.1 of 2021 is, accordingly,

ordered.

8. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver is not challenged,

as no appeal is filed by the insurer. The further finding that the owner

and insurer of the tractor are jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation is also not disputed.

9. The only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,

is whether the claimants are entitled for any enhancement of

compensation and if so to what extent.

10. It is not disputed and is also borne out by the evidence on

record that the deceased was aged 20 years and was working as Power

Loom Weaver, was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The Tribunal, after

taking 1/3rd of the income of the deceased as loss of future earnings to

the claimants, estimated the same at Rs.1,333/- (Rs.4,000 x 1/3) and

Rs.15,996/- per annum and after applying the multiplier of '15'

considering the fact that the deceased had two unmarried sisters,

estimated the loss of future earnings in a sum of Rs.2,39,940/-

(Rs.15,996/- x 15) and by awarding Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love

and affection, arrived at a total compensation of 2,59,940/-, which was

rounded off to Rs.2,60,000/-.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the

Tribunal had applied multiplier '15' by taking into consideration the

age of the mother of the deceased and also the fact that the deceased

had two unmarried sisters. Instead the Tribunal ought to have taken

the multiplier '18', as per the judgment of the Apex Court in

SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION1.

The learned counsel further contends that as per the judgment of the

Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS2, an addition of 40% of the

established income should be made where the deceased was

self-employed and was below the age group of 40 years and as per

3-Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in MUNNA LAL JAIN

& ANR VS VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA & OTHERS3, the age of the

deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier while

determining the income of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken

1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards loss of future earnings to

the claimants instead of 50%. The learned counsel further contends

that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at 7.5% per annum

instead of 7% per annum. The Tribunal failed to award compensation

under the conventional heads.

2009(6) SCC 121

2017 ACJ 2700

(2015) 6 SCC 347

12. The learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company,

on the other hand, contends that the multiplier '15' applied by the

Tribunal is just and proper and the compensation granted by the

Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs no interference.

13. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 20 years at

the time of the accident and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The

Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the established income of the

deceased towards his personal and living expenses, instead

of 1/3rd. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in PRANAY

SETHI's case (2 supra), the Tribunal ought to have added 40% to the

actual income of the deceased by way of future prospects while

determining the income of the deceased, who was below the age of

40 years. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the

deceased would be '18' as per SARLA VARMA's case (1 supra).

Applying the same, the compensation works out to Rs.6,04,800/-

(Rs.4,000/- x 12 x 50% x 18 + 40%). By awarding Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.80,000/- towards filial and parental consortium, the total

compensations works out to Rs.7,14,800/-.

14. In the circumstances, the impugned award of the Tribunal is

modified accordingly.

15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed by enhancing the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,60,000/- to

Rs.7,14,800/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of award passed by the Tribunal till the date of

realization. The enhanced amount shall be apportioned among the

claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation

amounts were directed by the Tribunal. The claimants shall pay

deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the claim is for

Rs.4 lakhs. If the deficit court fee is not paid as per Rule 475 of M.V.

Rules before the Tribunal, the claimants are not entitled for execution

of Award in respect of enhanced compensation. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI Date: 31.01.2022 Lrkm