Penchikat Satyanaryana And 2 ... vs Sribhaskar Rao And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3544 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                 MACMA.No.2264 of 2007


JUDGMENT:

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri K.Jagathpal

Reddy and learned counsel for 2nd respondent Sri P.Bhanu

Prakash.

2. The claim petitioners filed the present appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation granted in the decree and award

dated 12.01.2007 in OP.No.2376 of 2004 passed by the XI

Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court,

Hyderabad.

3. The husband and parents-in-law of Santoshi/deceased, who

died in the vehicular accident dated 11.08.2004, filed the claim

petition for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. It is the case of appellants/ petitioners (hereinafter 'the

petitioners') in brief is that on 11.08.2004 the 1st petitioner as

rider and Santoshi/deceased as pillion rider were proceeding on

Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.APAA 8272, at 2 NTR,J MACMA_2264_2007

Narapally out skirts, one lorry bearing registration No.AEK 2646,

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, struck the

motor cycle from behind and caused severe injuries to them.

Later while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital,

Santoshi/deceased succumbed to her injuries. Thus, the

petitioners pleading loss of dependency and other heads, filed

the petition for compensation.

5. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence, granted

Rs.1,77,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of

petition, till the date of realization with proportionate costs and

the insured and insurer/respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally

held liable.

6. In the appeal, the petitioners contested that the Tribunal

had erred in assessing the compensation basing on notional

income of II Schedule, in spite of the evidence on record.

Further, the aspects of transportation charges, loss of estate and

damage to clothing were not considered and meager amounts

were awarded under conventional heads. In support of their

claim, the petitioners relied on the authority of this Court in 3 NTR,J MACMA_2264_2007

D.Geetha @ Geetha Rani and others Vs.P.Jaipal Reddy and

others1.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent

pleaded that the Tribunal had properly considered the material

on record and appropriate amounts were granted as

compensation. More so, as there is no infirmity in the impugned

award, the appeal may be dismissed.

8. I have perused the material on record.

9. On the aspects of liability, in the impugned award, the

learned Tribunal while considering the first issue that whether the

accident in question took place on 11.08.2004 on account of rash

and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.AEK

2046 by its driver, concluded that the accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of 1st respondent's

vehicle. However, in the relief portion i.e., issue No.3, and in

the decree directed the insurer to deposit the amount within one

month and recover from the insured/1st respondent without filing

any suit. The pertinent case of P.W.1 and police record are

pointing that the accident occurred as the crime vehicle came in

2019 (6) ALD 16 (TS) 4 NTR,J MACMA_2264_2007

a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle from

behind. Neither the respondent nor the police record referred to

any contributory negligence of the rider of motor cycle or the

deceased. The learned Tribunal without such contention or

scrutiny, concluded this aspect against the respondents. Thus,

directing the insurer to pay and recover from the insured is found

not sustainable. Hence, the conclusion of the learned Tribunal to

this extent is liable to be set aside and both the respondents are

jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

10. The petitioners claimed that the deceased was aged 20

years by the date of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per

month by working as tailor, but no corroborating material is

placed on record. However, considering the entries in police

record, the age of Santoshi/deceased can be taken at 20 years.

11. With regard to the occupation and income; the

appellants/petitioners filed Ex.A3-letter said to have been issued

by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. This document cannot be

taken as material evidence to prove the income for the reason

that the Sarpanch is not the authority to maintain the income

particulars. Above all, the author of the document was not 5 NTR,J MACMA_2264_2007

examined. Howsoever, even considering the services of

Santoshi/deceased as house wife, the monthly income shall be

believed at Rs.3,000/- as approved in the authority of Lata

Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar2.

12. Further as per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others3,

40% of the income is to be added towards future prospects;

Furthermore, considering the number of dependents, 1/3rd

income has to be deducted for the personal expenses; On

calculation, the annual contribution of the deceased to the

petitioners would be Rs.33,600/-. If this sum is multiplied with

the relevant multiplier to the age of the deceased, the sum works

out to Rs.6,04,800/- (Rs.33,600 x 18). The petitioners are

entitled to this amount towards '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/-.

(2001) 8 SCC 197

(2017) 16 SCC 860 6 NTR,J MACMA_2264_2007

14. Thus, in total, the petitioners are eligible for the

compensation as follows :

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (Rs.) Loss of Dependency 6,04,800.00 Loss of Estate 15,000.00 Funeral Charges 15,000.00 Spousal consortium 40,000.00 TOTAL 6,74,800.00

15. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed as follows:

(i) the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay

Rs.6,74,800/- (Rupees six lakhs, seventy four thousand, eight

hundred 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 amounts, as apportioned.

                                7                            NTR,J
                                                  MACMA_2264_2007

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J

Date: .07.2022 Shr