Erukala Gangaram 3 Others vs Jammikunta Gangaiah Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3602 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.515 of 2016

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the order dated 15.10.2015

in MVOP.No.648 of 2013 on the file of MACT-cum-District

and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 (1)(c) of

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-

for the death of one Erukala Enkavva (hereinafter referred as

'the deceased") who died in the accident that occurred on

03.05.2013 at 12.00 Noon while proceeding to Haveli

Ghanpur from Golapet in an auto bearing No.AP-25-W-7348

due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the said auto.

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

husband and sons of the deceased.

4. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants

contended that the appeal is filed only with regard to

GAC, J MACMA No.515_2016

applying of wrong multiplier, and that there is no dispute as

to the age, income and other issues considered by the

Tribunal.

6. As per the claim petition the age of the deceased is 62

years, which is corroborated with the documentary evidence

i.e. Exs.A3 and A4 (inquest report and post-mortem

examination report of the deceased).

7. On perusal of the Order of the Tribunal it is evident that

multiplier '5' has been applied for considering loss of

dependency, but as per principle laid down in Sarla Verma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1 the

appropriate multiplier '7' has to be applied for the age group

of 61 to 65.

8. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of

Rs.3,15,000/- under the following heads;

1. Loss of dependency - Rs.2,24,000-00

2. Loss of estate - Rs. 25,000-00

3. Funeral expenses - Rs. 25,000-00

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GAC, J MACMA No.515_2016

9. 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 for having

wrongly applied multiplier by the Tribunal. The Tribunal

considered the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per

month. It can be construed that the Tribunal has wrongly

calculated the loss of dependency by applying multiplier as

'5' instead of '7'. The annual income of the deceased is

Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 12). As the deceased was above

the age group 60, she is not entitled for any future prospects.

As the appellants in this case are four in number 1/4th has to

be deducted towards the personal expenses of the

deceased. Therefore, the contribution of the deceased

would come to Rs.54,000/- (Rs.72,000/- minus Rs.18,000/-

being 1/4th). If the multiplier '7' is applied, it would come to

Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.54,000/- x multiplier '7')

10. Thus, the appellants are entitled to following amounts

of compensation under different heads;

1. Loss of dependency - Rs.3,78,000-00

2. Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000-00

3. Loss of Estate - Rs. 15,000-00

GAC, J MACMA No.515_2016

Which comes to a total compensation of Rs.4,08,000/-

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.3,15,000/- to Rs.4,08,000/- with

costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization. The

appellants/claimants are directed pay deficit court fee on the

enhanced compensation.

12. All the appellants are entitled to equal shares in the

compensation amount awarded and they are permitted to

withdraw their respective shares of compensation as the

accident took place in the year 2013.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J 11th July, 2022

trr