Telangana High Court
Smt. Mahaboob Begum, Hyd. Ano. vs Mirza Moiz Baig, Hyd., Ano. on 24 November, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.4248 of 2012
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.2328 of
2003, dated 17.09.2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court,
Hyderabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as
arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appellants are the claimants. The O.P. was filed by the
claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of the
deceased/Mohd.Hussain, in the accident which occurred on
02.05.2003 at 8.00 p.m., while the deceased along with his friend
Assad Ahmed were going to Hyderabad from Moinabad on
motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-G-3131 and when they reached
Aziznagar, the motorcycle dashed to the stationed lorry bearing
No.AP-11-U-3716, which was wrongly parked in the middle of the
GAC, J
MACMA.No.4248 of 2012
road without any signals or parking lights. As a result, the
deceased died on the spot.
4. Basing on the complaint of the friend of the deceased who
sustained injuries, the SHO, Moinabad Police Station registered a
case in Crime No.94 of 2003 against the driver of the lorry for the
offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The claimants are
the parents of the deceased. It is the specific averment that the
deceased was hale and healthy and was drawing monthly salary of
Rs.6,000/- as Manager in M/s.Diamond Freight Carriers,
Hyderabad and was contributing the same 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 lorry.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.4248 of 2012
7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the claimants have 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 claimants that
the Tribunal has erred in taking the age of the mother of the
deceased while considering the multiplier and further did not
consider Ex.A-6/the salary certificate of the deceased and instead
of it, considered the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per
annum (notional income) 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 other Notional heads
while calculating the compensation and prayed to allow the appeal.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company contended that there is no error or irregularity
in the orders passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere with the same
GAC, J
MACMA.No.4248 of 2012
and 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
02.05.2003. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal has
taken the age of the mother of the deceased into consideration for
the purpose of multiplier and Ex.A-6/salary certificate was not
considered, as the author of Ex.A-6 was not examined. Exs.A-2
and A-3 are the inquest and postmortem reports of the deceased,
wherein, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 19 years as on
the date of accident.
12. 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, for the
year 2003.
(2011) 13 SCC 236
GAC, J
MACMA.No.4248 of 2012
13. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the
Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-. As
already stated supra, the deceased was aged about 19 years 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 is 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 of the deceased 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, claimants are
entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium and Rs.15,000/-
(2009) 6 SCC 121
2017 ACJ 2700
GAC, J
MACMA.No.4248 of 2012
towards funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate.
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the compensation under the
following heads;
1. Loss of dependency Rs.6,80,400/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- to each of Rs.80,000/-
the claimant)
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.7,90,400 /-
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total
compensation of Rs.7,90,400/- with costs and interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
Therefore, the appellants i.e. the parents of the deceased are
equally entitled for the said amount and they are permitted to
withdraw the entire compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 24.11.2022
ajr
