K. Prameela vs The Tsrtc
2022 Latest Caselaw 3927 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2665 of 2018

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is arising out of the order dated 18.06.2018, in

MVOP.No.1772 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the

sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the OP.

2. The appeal is filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of

compensation. The O.P. is filed by the claimants before the

Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming

compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with costs and interest for the

death of the deceased K. Tummalesham in the accident occurred on

26.02.2017 at about 5.00 p.m. at Barakhanalu. The claimants in

the O.P. are the wife and children of the deceased. A Memo is

filed before this Court stating that the Appellant No.1 died on

22.12.2018 and the legal representatives are already on record i.e.

Appellant Nos.2 and 3 and the said Memo was recorded.

GAC, J MACMA.No.2665 of 2018

3. The appeal is filed disputing about the less quantum of

compensation granted by the Tribunal. So, the appreciation would

be only with regard to that aspect.

4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record.

5. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working

as a Sweeper and doing Kirana business and used to earn

Rs.25,000/- per month. It is urged by the learned counsel for the

claimants that the Tribunal has not considered the said aspect and

erred in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month.

It is further contended that the income of the deceased has to be

considered as Rs.10,000/- per month or it has to be fixed at least as

Rs.6,500/- per month, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in

Syed Sadiq & others v. Divisional Manager, United India

Insurance Co. Ltd.1.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the

respondent/RTC contended that the Tribunal has properly

2014 ACJ 627

GAC, J MACMA.No.2665 of 2018

appreciated the facts and awarded just compensation to the

claimants, and therefore, prayed to confirm the orders of the

Tribunal by dismissing the appeal.

7. 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.4,84,000/-
 2.   Consortium to the wife                   Rs.40,000/-
 3.   Funeral expenses                         Rs.10,000/-
 4.   Loss of love and affection               Rs.15,000/-
 5.   Transportation                           Rs.15,000/-
      TOTAL                                    Rs.5,64,000/-

8. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that

Ex.A-6 are the receipts dated 24.02.2017 issued by the Junior

Assistant of Sri Edupayala Vanadurga Bhavani Devasthanam,

Medak on receiving tax of Rs.500/- from the deceased for running

sugarcane business. But, the said Junior Assistant of the temple

was not examined before the Tribunal for the reasons best known

to the claimants. The recitals of Ex.A-6 disclose that the deceased

used to pay tax of Rs.500/- to the Devasthanam, but contrary to

that, the evidence of PW-2 disclose that the deceased used to work

as a Sweeper and earn Rs.10,000/- and another Rs.20,000/- by

GAC, J MACMA.No.2665 of 2018

doing kirana business, but no documents are filed to that effect

before the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal have considered the

income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month.

9. Admittedly, Ex.A-6 reveal that the deceased used to run

sugarcane business and pay tax to the Devasthanam. Taking into

consideration the proposition laid in the case of Syed Sadiq's case

(1 supra), an amount of Rs.6,500/- per month can be fixed as the

income of the deceased even in the absence of proper documentary

evidence.

10. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the claimants

contended that though the wife of the deceased died, she is also

entitled for compensation under the conventional head and relied

on the judgment in Paramjith Kaur & others v. Gurdev Singh &

others2, wherein, their Lordships have held as under :

"By applying the dictum as laid down in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Somwati and others3, both the parents of the deceased Balbir Singh are held entitled to a filial

2021 ACJ 1945

2020 (4) PLR 1

GAC, J MACMA.No.2665 of 2018

consortium of Rs.40,000/-each. The submission advanced by counsel for the insurance company that since parents of the deceased have already expired as such the amount under the head of loss of consortium cannot be awarded is found to be misconceived and not well founded. Upon the death of Balbir Singh in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.10.2000, not only the widow and minor children but even the parents had filed the claim petition."

11. As per the above citation, the family members of the

deceased who died subsequent to the death of the deceased, are

also entitled for consortium as the claim which already stood

crystalised on the date of accident cannot be negated by the

subsequent death of the parties. Taking into consideration the

above said ratio, the 1st appellant who is no more, is also entitled

for consortium.

12. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 55 years as on the

date of accident. As discussed above, the monthly income of the

deceased is taken as Rs.6,500/-, and thus, the annual income comes

to Rs.78,000/-. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation &

GAC, J MACMA.No.2665 of 2018

another4, the multiplier applicable is '11' for the age group of 51

to 55 years. If 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of

deceased, his contribution to the family would come to Rs.52,000/-

(Rs.78,000 - Rs.26,000). If 10% is added towards future prospects,

it would come to Rs.57,200/- (Rs.52,000 + 5,200). If the multiplier

'11' is applied, it would come to Rs.6,29,200/- (Rs.57,200 X 11).

Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,29,200/- towards loss

of dependency.

13. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the

following heads;

    1.   Loss of dependency                 Rs.6,29,200/-
    2.   Funeral expenses                   Rs.15,000/-

3. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each for 3 Rs.1,20,000/-

claimants)

4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-

TOTAL Rs.7,79,200/-

14. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of, granting a total

compensation of Rs.7,79,200/- with costs and interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

and respondents 1 and 2 (RTC) are jointly and severally liable to

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GAC, J MACMA.No.2665 of 2018

pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of

this order. As the 1st claimant is no more, claimant Nos.2 and 3,

who are the children of the deceased, are equally entitled for the

said compensation and they are permitted to withdraw their

respective shares with costs and interest, as the accident occurred

in the year 2017.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 28.07.2022

ajr