Telangana High Court
Md. Khayyumkhan, And 3 Others vs Kapa Ramakrishna, And Another on 1 July, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
MACMA No.1074 of 2019
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved
by the Order dated 17.07.2013 passed in MVOP No.2212 of
2011 on the file of the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil
Courts, Hyderabad, (for short, the Tribunal).
2. Claimants are the parents, younger sister and brother of
the deceased, who met with accident and died on 06.10.2011.
They filed an application claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after
considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of
Rs.11,78,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date
of the petition to till the date of deposit with proportionate costs.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed
by the claimants and they mainly contended that the Tribunal
failed to consider the future prospects of life from the deceased.
The pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages are not calculated
as per the established law confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Tribunal has not considered the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3
and also documents Exs.X1, X2, X3 pertaining to PW-2 in
proper perspective and it is requested to grant compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- by modifying the award of the Tribunal.
4. The deceased was studying 3rd year B.Tech course.
Relying upon the Judgment in B. Ramulamma Vs. M/s.
Vekatesh Bus Union and another in which it was held that
minimum income of B.E Graduate can be fixed at Rs.12,000/-
per month. 10% can be deducted in respect of the students
studying III year or II year as the case may be. There is no
dispute regarding the date of birth of the deceased as he was
born on 09.09.1990 and met with accident on 16.06.2011, he
was aged 21 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal
rightly considered the above judgment deducted 10% and taken
his income as Rs.10,800/- per month as he was a bachelor
50% is deducted from his salary towards his personal expenses
and net loss of income was taken as Rs.5,400/- per month.
The counsel for the appellants herein relied upon the decision
of this Court in which the income of the deceased was taken as
Rs.12,000/- per month but on perusal of the judgment shows
that the deceased was studying 4th year at the time of the
accident. Whereas the deceased in the present case was
studying 3rd year only, as such the Tribunal rightly deducted
10% as per the judgment and it needs no interference.
5. As the deceased was 21 years he is entitled for 40%
towards future prospects as per the citation reported in 2017
(1) SCC 680 but the Tribunal could not calculate future
prospects of the deceased. Admittedly, he was engineering
student and he is entitled for 40% towards future prospects.
Therefore, the annual income of the deceased was taken as
Rs.64,800/- (5,400/- X 12). Then Rs.64,800/- X 40% =
25,920/- i.e. Rs.64,800/- + 25,920/- after adding future
prospects annual income of deceased comes to Rs.90,720/-.
As the multiplier is 18, the loss of contribution to family comes
to Rs.16,32,960/- (90,720/- X 18). The 1st and 2nd petitioners
are also entitled for Rs.40,000/- each (i.e. Rs.80,000/-)
towards filial consortium as per 2018 ACJ 2782 in MAGMA
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. NANU RAM AND
OTHERS and so also Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) they
also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses,
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- for
transportation and Rs.1,000/- for damages to clothes. Then
in all it comes to Rs.17,48,960/- (Rs.16,32,960/- + 1,16,000/-).
6. Though the amount claimed by the petitioners in the
Tribunal was only Rs.11,78,400/- but in the appeal they
claimed for Rs.20,00,000/-. The claimants are entitled for just
compensation irrespective of their claim which this Court feels it
is just and reasonable to fix the compensation from
Rs.11,78,400/- to Rs.17,48,960/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs
Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty only).
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent
indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
7. The appellants are directed to pay deficit Court fee on the
excess amount granted by this Court than the amount claimed
by them within a period of one month from today.
8. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal
shall stand closed in the light of this final order.
___________________
P.SREE SUDHA, J
01st July, 2022
Skj.
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
M.A.C.M.A. NO. 1074 OF 2019
Dated: 01.07.2022
Skj
