Telangana High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd., ... vs B Anitha, Hyderabad 5 Others on 16 June, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. NO.1761 OF 2016
AND
CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.26623 OF 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the
award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in
M.V.O.P.No.319 of 2013 dt.25.11.2015, while the Cross Objections are
filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased who died due to
the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.10.2012. The deceased
was aged 30 years and it was claimed that he was working as a mason
and was earning around Rs.15,000/- per month at the relevant point of
time. The Tribunal has adopted Rs.9,000/- per month and computed the
compensation accordingly and awarded a compensation of
Rs.23,90,500/- as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/-, subject to
payment of Court fee on the enhanced compensation.
MACMA No.1761 of 2016
2 and Cross Objections
3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, Sri A.
Ramakrishna Reddy, submits that there is no evidence produced by the
claimants that the deceased was working as mason or that he was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month as claimed by them. Therefore, according
to him, the Tribunal has erroneously estimated Rs.300/- per day average
income for a skilled labour and adopted a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month.
According to him, reasonable income of a person such as the deceased
should be adopted at Rs.6,000/- per month.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants, Sri P. Rama Krishna Reddy,
on the other hand, sought for enhancement of the compensation by
adopting higher figure, i.e., Rs.15,000/- per month since the deceased
was a mason and a skilled labourer. In support of his contention that for
a skilled labour, where no evidence could be produced with regard to his
income, his estimated monthly income should be around Rs.15,000/- to
Rs.16,500/-, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shivakumar M. Vs. Managing Director,
Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation1.
5. The claimants have also filed cross-objections to this effect.
(2017) 5 SCC 79
MACMA No.1761 of 2016
3 and Cross Objections
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court observes that since no evidence is produced before this Court
with regard to earning of Rs.15,000/- per month by the deceased, the
same cannot be adopted. However, whether skilled or unskilled, the
deceased admittedly was working as a labourer and adopting Rs.300/-
per day average is not excessive. This Court therefore confirms the
monthly income adopted by the Tribunal.
7. As regards the other heads under which compensation has been
granted, this Court is of the opinion that it is not in accordance with the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others2 and
accordingly compensation is to be awarded as under.
8. The 1st claimant being the wife of the deceased is entitled to
spousal consortium at Rs.40,000/- and claimants 2 to 4 being children of
the deceased are eligible for parental consortium at the rate of
Rs.40,000/- each with 10% enhancement thereon for each of the
claimants 1 to 4. They are also entitled to compensation towards funeral
(2017) 16 SCC 680
MACMA No.1761 of 2016
4 and Cross Objections
expenses and loss of estate at Rs.15,000/- each with 10% enhancement
thereon.
9. As far as loss of future prospects is concerned, since the deceased
was 30 years of age at the time of his death, it has to be computed at
40% of the income of the deceased.
10. In the light of the abovementioned discussion, the claimants 1 to 4
are entitled to the following amounts:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Income Rs.9,000 per month
(2) Future prospects Rs.3,600 (i.e. 40% of the income)
(3) Deduction towards Rs.3,150 i.e. 1/4th of
Personal Expenses (Rs.9,000 + 3,600 = 12,600)
(4) Total income Rs.9,450 i.e. 3/4th of
(Rs.9,000 + 3,600 = 12,600)
(6) Loss of future income Rs.19,27,800 (Rs.9,450x12x17)
(7) Funeral expenses Rs.16,500 (15,000 + 10% thereof)
(8) Loss of estate Rs.16,500 (15,000 + 10% thereof)
(9) Spousal consortium Rs.44,000 (40,000 + 10% thereof)
payable to the 1st claimant
MACMA No.1761 of 2016
5 and Cross Objections
(10) Parental consortium Rs.1,32,000 (40,000 + 10%
thereof each) payable to claimants
2 to 4
Total compensation awarded Rs.21,13,800 along with interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till
payment.
11. In the result, the award dt.25.11.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.319 of 2013
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is modified by awarding a
total compensation of Rs.21,13,800/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs
Thirteen Thousand and Eight Hundred only) with costs and interest
thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the
date of realisation against the insurance company and the owner of the
vehicle involved in the accident. As the compensation payable to the
claimants as per law was found to be higher than the original claim of
Rs.12,00,000/-, the enhanced compensation of Rs.9,13,800/- is granted
subject to payment of Court fee by the claimants on such enhanced
compensation. Out of the total compensation of Rs.21,13,800/-, claimant
No.1 is entitled to Rs.7,99,800 (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Nine
Thousand and Eight Hundred only), claimants 2 to 4 are each entitled to
Rs.4,38,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Thirty Eight Thousand only) and
MACMA No.1761 of 2016
6 and Cross Objections
the other terms regarding deposit and withdrawal of compensation,
keeping the shares of the minors and a portion of the 1st claimant's
compensation in fixed deposits, etc., shall be as directed by the
impugned award.
12. The Appeal of the insurance company is partly allowed and the
Cross Objections of the claimants are disposed of with the above
directions. No order as to costs in the Appeal as well as in the Cross
Objections.
13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this MACMA and
Cross Objections shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 16.06.2022
Svv
