Telangana High Court
Smt. Chinnamak Sangamma vs M/S Sri Sai Travels, Secunderabd ... on 18 November, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1219 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.484 of
2005, dated 16.05.2007 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as
arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appellant is the claimant. The O.P. was filed by the
claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of death of the
deceased/Chinnamak Veeresh, in the accident which occurred on
16.05.2005 at about 6.45 a.m., while the deceased along with
others, were proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP-11-W-8666
from Ramchandrapuram to Hyderabad, one APSRTC bus bearing
No.AP-09-W-5010, driven by its Driver at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Auto, as a result, the
inmates of the Auto sustained serious injuries and were shifted to
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1219 of 2008
Gandhi hospital. The deceased succumbed to injuries on
02.06.2005 while undergoing treatment in the said hospital.
4. Basing on the complaint of the family members of the
deceased, the SHO, Ramchandrapuram Police Station registered a
case in Crime No.157 of 2005 against the driver of the APSRTC
Bus for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A of IPC. The
claimant is the mother of the deceased. It is the specific averment
that the deceased was hale and healthy and was contributing his
income to the family.
5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents
disputing the age and income of the deceased. It was further
contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of
the Bus.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-,
taking the notional income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum,
as there is no specific documentary evidence before the Tribunal.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1219 of 2008
7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement
of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence would be with
respect to the quantum alone.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant that the Tribunal has erred in taking the notional
income of deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum while calculating the
compensation and prayed to consider the income of the deceased as
Rs.4,500/- per month and also to grant future prospects and
amounts under other notional heads considering the proposition of
the Apex Court while calculating the compensation and prayed to
allow the appeal.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-
RTC contended that there is no error or irregularity in the orders
passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same and
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1219 of 2008
therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal confirming the judgment of
the Tribunal.
11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no
dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on
16.05.2005. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased, who deposed that
the deceased was aged 20 years as on the date of accident. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa v. Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd1., taken the income of the
deceased/coolie, as Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, taking into
consideration the above said proposition, the income of the
deceased is fixed as Rs.4,500/- per month.
12. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the
Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- towards loss of
dependency, loss of estate, funeral and other expenses.
13. As per the oral evidence of PW-1 and Exs.A-1, A-2, A-4 and
A-5 (FIR, Inquest report, charge sheet and postmortem report of
the deceased respectively), the deceased was aged about 20 years
(2011) 13 SCC 236
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1219 of 2008
as on the date of the accident and the income of the deceased
can be taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. If 40% future prospects is
added, it would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500+1800). As the
deceased was an unmarried person, 50% of his earnings has to be
deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, his contribution
towards family would come to Rs.3,150/-. As per the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & another2, the multiplier applicable is '18' for the
age group of 15 to 25 years. If the annual income and multiplier
'18' are applied, then, the loss of earnings would be Rs.6,80,400/-
(Rs.3,150 X 12 X 18).
14. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others3, claimant is
entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate.
(2009) 6 SCC 121
2017 ACJ 2700
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1219 of 2008
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation under the
following heads;
1. Loss of dependency Rs.6,80,400/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium Rs.40,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.7,50,400 /-
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total
compensation of Rs.7,50,400/- with costs and interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
Therefore, the appellant i.e. the mother of the deceased, is entitled
for the said amount, on payment of deficit court fee and the
appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire
compensation, as the accident occurred in the year 2005.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 18.11.2022
ajr
