Telangana High Court
Dasari Bharathamma, Cyberabad 3 ... vs S Pratap, Prakasam Dist Anr on 11 July, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1066 OF 2016
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the order dated 22.07.2013
passed in MVOP.No.1504 of 2009 on the file of XVII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar.
2. The claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one D.Bhikshapathi, who died in
the accident occurred on 13.07.2009 at 10.30 a.m. near
Prashanthpuri thanda.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in the O.P.
3. The claimants are the appellants, who are the wife, sons and
mother of the deceased.
4. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that
Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased as
GAC, J
MACMA No.1066_2016
Rs.10,000/- per month on cattle business though it was specifically
stated by PW1 and further contended that the Tribunal has erred in
granting lesser amount towards funeral expenses, loss of
consortium and loss of estate and, therefore, prayed to grant more
compensation under the said heads.
6. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent-
insurance company has urged that the Tribunal has rightly
calculated the loss of dependency as there is no documentary
evidence as to the income of the deceased except Ex.A7. But it
cannot be taken into consideration as the author of the said
document was not examined before the Tribunal.
7. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the
appellants relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Syed Sadiq
Vs. Divisional Manger, United India Insurance Company1,
wherein their Lordships have held that a vegetable vendor is
capable of earning Rs.6,500/- per month and further he is entitled
to 50% increment in future prospects of income.
2014 (2) ALD 133 (SC)
GAC, J
MACMA No.1066_2016
8. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants
that the Apex Court have considered the income of the vegetable
vendor as Rs.6,500/- in the year 2008 and the accident in the
present case took place in the year 2009 and the same may be
considered as the income of the deceased from the cattle business.
9. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the
Tribunal has awarded the following amounts under different heads;
1. Loss of dependency - Rs.5,76,000-00
2. Consortium - Rs. 5,000-00
3. Funeral expenses - Rs. 2,000-00
4. Loss of estate - Rs. 2,500-00
Thus, granted an amount of Rs.5,85,000/- towards
compensation.
10. Admittedly, there is no dispute as to manner of the accident,
or as to the age of the deceased. This appeal is only filed being
aggrieved by the judgment in granting lesser compensation to the
appellants. The age of the deceased is mentioned as '38' years in
the claim petition, which is corroborated with Exs.A2 and A4 i.e.
Inquest report and Post-mortem examination report of the
GAC, J
MACMA No.1066_2016
deceased. The Tribunal considered the income of the deceased as
Rs.4,500/- per month. Considering the ratio applied in Syed
Sadiq's case (stated supra) this court is of the considered view
that an amount of Rs.6,500/- can be taken as the income of the
deceased as the inquest report i.e. Ex.A2 and Ex.A7 the income
certificate corroborate the oral evidence of PW1 as to the avocation
of the deceased of doing cattle business. After considering the
evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the deceased
was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident. In view of
the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation2 the suitable multiplier would be '16'.
Therefore, it can be construed that the Tribunal has wrongly
calculated the loss of dependency by taking the income as
Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, the annual income of the
deceased can be taken as Rs.78,000/- (Rs.6,500/- x 12). If 40%
future prospects is added thereto, it would come to Rs.1,09,200/-
(Rs.78,000/- + Rs.31,200/-). As the appellants in this case are four
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
GAC, J
MACMA No.1066_2016
in number, therefore, 1/4th has to be deducted towards the personal
expenses of the deceased. Therefore, the contribution of the
deceased to the family would come to Rs.81,900/- (Rs.1,09,200 -
Rs.27,300/-). If the multiplier '15' is applied, it would come to
Rs.12,28,500/-.
11. Thus, the appellants 1 to 4 are entitled to the compensation
under the following heads;
1 Loss of dependency Rs.12,28,500-00
2 Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000-00
3 Consortium to the 1st Rs. 40,000-00
st
petitioner/1 appellant
4 Consortium to the 4th Rs. 40,000-00
th
petitioner/4 appellant
5 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000-00
Total Rs. 13,38,500-00
As petitioners 2 and 3 are the majors sons of the deceased,
they are not entitled for any consortium.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the
compensation from Rs.5,85,000/- to Rs.13,38,500/- with costs and
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization.
GAC, J
MACMA No.1066_2016
13. Out of the said compensation, the 1st appellant being the wife
of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.5,38,500/-; the 2nd and 3rd
appellants, being the sons of the deceased, are entitled to
Rs.2,50,000/- each and the 3rd appellant being the mother of the
deceased is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- and on such deposit, all the
appellants are permitted to withdraw their shares of compensation,
as the accident took place in the year 2009.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 11.07.2022
trr
