Telangana High Court
Smt. Potlapalli Padmavathi, ... vs S. Jangaiah, Rr Dist Ano on 5 July, 2022
Bench: N.Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
MACMA.No.462 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri B.Venkat Reddy learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy learned counsel for
2nd respondent.
2. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in
the award and decree dated 22.09.2012 in OP.No.15 of
2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal - cum-X-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, the appellants/petitioners (hereinafter 'the
petitioners') preferred this appeal.
3. The wife, children and mother of
P.Jagadeswar/deceased, who died in a motor accident dated
01.05.2010 filed petition, seeking compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. The petitioners' case in brief is that on 01.05.2010,
while Jagadeswar/deceased was waiting in Kothaguda bus
NTR,J
2 Macma_462_2013
stop, a lorry bearing registration No.AP29TA 2789 driven by
its driver in rash and negligent manner, knocked him down,
and caused his instantaneous death. Therefore, the
petitioners claiming loss of dependency filed the claim
petition.
5. The learned Tribunal by considering the material
placed on record, granted compensation of Rs.Rs.8,00,000/-
with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition,
till the date of realization against the respondents.
6. In appeal, the petitioners contested that the learned
tribunal had erroneously taken the monthly earnings of the
Jagadeswar/deceased at Rs.5,000/- though there was oral
evidence of the P.W.2. Further, the future prospects was
not considered and the personal expenditure should have
been deducted at 1/4th of the income and the amount
granted under conventional heads are very meager. Thus,
prayed for reassessment and granting just compensation.
7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent (hereinafter
'the respondent) pleaded that the tribunal had leniently
considered the case of the petitioners and by a categorical
NTR,J
3 Macma_462_2013
observation that the evidence of P.W.2 is not reliable,
notionally assessed the income by considering the pleaded
occupation, as such, the amounts awarded under other
heads are reasonable, hence prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. I have perused the record and considered the
pleadings put forth by the learned counsel on both sides.
9. At the outset, the accident, death of
Jagadeswar/deceased in the accident and liability of the
respondents to pay the compensation as concluded by the
learned tribunal are not in dispute.
10. The petitioners claimed that the Jagadeswar/deceased
was aged 35 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month as
correspondent-cum-owner of Shanthinikethan school.
11. The learned tribunal by considering the date of birth
entries in Secondary School Certificate/Ex.A12, had taken
the age of Jagadeswar/deceased at 35 years by the date of
accident. Further, as the evidence of P.W.3, who claimed to
be the Secretary of the school run by the
Jagadeswar/deceased is not supported by any document and
NTR,J
4 Macma_462_2013
as the version given is inherently inconsistent, his evidence
was not believed. However, by considering the pleaded
occupation, notionally assessed the monthly income at
Rs.5,000/-. The course adopted by the learned tribunal in
arriving at these conclusions is found rational, accordingly,
these aspects are affirmed.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 held that while
granting compensation in the cases of death, the self
employed are also entitled for future prospects. Having
regard to the age, if 40% of the monthly income added
towards further prospects, the annual income would be
Rs.84,000/-. As the dependents are 4 in number, 1/4th of
the income is to be deducted towards personal expenditure.
Thereby, the annual contribution of the
Jagadeswar/deceased to the petitioners would be
Rs.63,000/-. If this amount is multiplied with appropriate
multiplier to the age of the Jagadeswar/deceased, the sum
would come to Rs.10,08,000/- (Rs.63,000 x 16). The
(2017) 16 SCC 860
NTR,J
5 Macma_462_2013
petitioners are entitled to this amount under the head of
'loss of dependency'.
13. In addition, the petitioners are also entitled for
compensation under the conventional heads, viz.,
Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral charges. The 1st petitioner is entitled for spousal
consortium at Rs.40,000/-. Further, as per the dictum in
Magma General Insurance co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & ors.2 and
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @
Satwinder Kaur and others,3the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are
entitled for parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- each and the
4th petitioner is entitled for filial consortium at Rs.40,000/-.
14. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the
compensation as follows :
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency 10,08,000.00
Loss of Estate 15,000.00
Funeral Charges 15,000.00
Spousal consortium to 1st petitioner 40,000.00
Parental Consortium to 2nd & 3rd 80,000.00
petitioners @ Rs.40,000/-each
Filial consortium to the 4th petitioner 40,000.00
TOTAL 11,98,000.00
(2018) 18 SCC 130
Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020, dt.30.06.2020
NTR,J
6 Macma_462_2013
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed
as follows:
(i) the respondents are liable to pay Rs.11,98,000/-
(Rupees eleven lakhs, ninety eight thousand only) with
interest @ 7.5% per annum with costs., from the date of
petition till date of realization;
ii) the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded
amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment;
(iii) the apportionment among the petitioners shall be
in terms of the tribunal award.
(iv) On deposit of the awarded amount, the
petitioners are permitted to withdraw entire amount
apportioned in their favour.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 05.07.2022
Shr
