Telangana High Court
B Sathamma Another vs Pidatala Vijaya Kumari Another on 1 July, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 312 of 2015
JUDGMENT :
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad vide order dated 02.04.2014
in M.V.O.P. No. 778 of 2013, the present appeal is filed by the
claimants.
2. On 29.10.2012, while the deceased-B. Sudhaker, aged about
26 years, son of claimant Nos. 1 & 2, was proceeding on a
motorcycle, the offending vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No. AP 21TU
2243, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent
No. 2, being driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle, due to which, the
deceased fell down on the road, received multiple injuries and died
on the spot as the lorry ran over the body. According to the
claimants, the deceased was working as labourer and earning
Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, they laid a claim for Rs.6.00
lakhs towards compensation under different heads.
3. The learned Tribunal, considering the claim of the
appellants, counter filed by the respondent No.2 and on evaluation
of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the O.P. in part,
awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- along with costs
and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the 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. Since none
represents the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, to put a
quietus to the litigation, as the matter pertains to 2015, this Court
appointed Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, as the counsel for the
respondent No. 2-Insurance Company in this appeal, who after
perusal of the record, advanced his arguments. Perused the
material available on record.
5. In this appeal, the learned ccounsel for the appellants-
claimants, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla
Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1, has
contended that the tribunal erred in fixing the multiplier '5' basing
on the age of the mother, and considering the age of the deceased
as 27 years, the appropriate multiplier should be '17'. Further,
relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the
learned counsel further contends that to the existing income of the
2009 (6) SCC 121
2017 ACJ 2700
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).
6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, has contended that the
learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and
the same needs no interference by this Court. In fact, the tribunal
has accepted the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- in
the absence of any evidence produced by the claimant. Further,
as the deceased was bachelor by the time of the accident, the
tribunal ought to have deducted 50% towards personal expenses
of the deceased while arriving at the net monthly income that may
be contributed to the family, but, the tribunal has erroneously
deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses.
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 29.10.2012 that
resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased. As seen from
the record, the claimants-appellants had claimed that the
deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as labour, which is
on higher side considering the prevailing minimum wages at the
relevant point of time. Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. Basing on the
documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the age
of the deceased as 27 years as on the date of accident. Therefore,
as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra),
towards future prospects, 40% to the existing income of the
deceased needs to be added. Hence, the future income of the
deceased would be Rs.7,000/- per month (Rs.5,000 + 40%
thereof). As the deceased was bachelor, after deducting 50%
therefrom towards his personal expenses, the net monthly future
income that may be contributed to the family of the deceased is
Rs.3,500/-, and the annual contribution to the family comes to
Rs.42,000/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla
Varma (supra), considering the age of the deceased as 27 years,
the appropriate multiplier is '17'. Therefore, taking the same into
consideration, the total loss of dependency of the appellants comes
to Rs.7,14,000/-. Thus, under the head of loss of dependency, the
compensation is enhanced to Rs.7,14,000/-, as against
Rs.2,40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In addition thereto,
under the conventional heads, as against the amount of
Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are granted
Rs.33,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi
(supra). Thus, in all, the compensation is enhanced to
Rs.7,47,000/-, as against Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.7,47,000/-. The enhanced amount shall
carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the order of the
tribunal till the date of realization, to be payable by the
respondent. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned
between the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the
Tribunal. The appellants-claimants shall pay the deficit court fee
on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
Date: 01.07.2022
tsr
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 312 of 2015
DATE: 01-07-2022
