Telangana High Court
Purmani Sujatha, Adilabad Dist 3 ... vs Shyam Rao Kalyankar, Nanded Dist, ... on 24 November, 2022
Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MA.CMA.NO.3027 OF 2014
JUDGMENT
Not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the court of
the Chairman, MACT - cum - Principal District Judge, Adilabad in
MVOP.No.140 of 2010, dated 1.4.2014, the claimants filed the present
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The deceased is one Purmani Raju and the claimants are his
wife, minor children and mother.
3. The case of the claimants is that on 24.5.2009 at about
9.30 p.m., when the deceased was driving auto rickshaw bearing No.
AP 1 V 3807 from Ramnagar to Collector Chowk Adilabad, and on the
way, a lorry bearing No. MH 26 B 7477 came in opposite direction on
wrong side and dashed the auto, due to which the auto was completely
damaged and the deceased sustained injuries and he was shifted to RIMS,
Adilabad and he died while undergoing treatment. The Traffic Police,
Adilabad, registered a case against the lorry driver in Cr.No.31 of 2009
for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.
4. The further case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged
25 years, and was hale and healthy at the time of accident, and prior to the
accident he was earning an amount of Rs.3,300/- per month by working
as driver of the auto, and because of his premature death, they lost their
source of income. Hence, they filed claim petition under Section 163-A
of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
5. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte, and the
2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the crime auto, filed counter affidavit
and contested the claim.
6. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, and also the
evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the accident, coupled with
Exs.A-1 to A-5, recorded finding of fact that accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and that the deceased
died due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
7. Further taking the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per
month and by deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses and by applying
the multiplier of 18, granted an amount of Rs.3,24,000/- towards loss of
dependency. Further, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- to
the 1st claimant towards loss of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
estate and Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges. Thus, in all granted an
amount of Rs.3,74,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum
from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
8. As stated above, not being satisfied with the compensation
granted by the Tribunal, the claimants are before this court.
9. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy learned counsel for the claimants
and Smt. P.Satya Manjula, learned Standing Counsel for the
2nd respondent - insurer.
10. In the present case, as already noted above, there is no dispute
with regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry and that the
decease died in the accident and there is also no dispute that the policy of
the crime vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident. It is to be
further seen that though the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since the accident is found to have
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the
claimants are entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Act, and
the Tribunal has also awarded compensation under the said provision and
hence no interfere is warranted in this regard.
11. The deceased is found to be aged 25 years as per Exs.A-2 and
A-3 and the case of the claimants is that the deceased by driving auto was
earning an amount of Rs.3,300/- per month. In fact the amount claimed
by the claimants is very reasonable and hence, having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case and the avocation of the deceased, I am
inclined to take the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- and
Rs.42,000/- per annum.
12. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PRANAY SETHI1, for the age group of
the deceased, an addition of 40% has to be made to the established
income of the deceased. 40% of Rs.42,000/- comes to Rs.16,800/-. Thus
the annual income of the deceased including future prospects comes to
Rs.58,800/-.
13. The number of dependants of the deceased are four in number
and hence as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA vs.
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION2, deduction towards living and
personal expenses shall be at the rate of 1/4th. If 1/4th is deducted from
Rs.58,800/-, the income that the deceased would be contributing to his
family comes to Rs.44,100/-. The appropriate multiplier to the age group
of the deceased as per the same judgment of the Apex Court is '18' Thus
the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,93,800/- (Rs.44,100/- x 18
Rs.7,93,800/-).
AIR 2017 SC 5157
(2009)6 SCC 121
14. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case
(supra), the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- towards conventional
heads. The amount granted by the Tribunal under these heads is
accordingly modified.
15. Further, the claimants 2 and 3 are minors as on the date of the
accident and hence as per the judgment of the Apex Court in MAGMA
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM3, they are entitled
to Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. Thus, under this
head, claimants 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.80,000/-.
16. Thus, the amount of Rs.3,74,000 granted by the Tribunal is
enhanced to Rs.9,50,800/- (Rs.7,93,800/- + Rs.77,000/- + Rs.80,000/- =
Rs.9,50,800/-) with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the
date of the claim petition till the date of realization and the respondents 1
and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
17. The apportionment of compensation among the claimants shall
be in the same ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. Further, the deposit of
amount in nationalized bank and its withdrawal, shall also be as ordered
by the Tribunal.
(2018)18 SCC 130
18. The claimants shall pay the deficit court. Any amount already
deposed by the insurance company shall be given credit to. The
compensation shall be deposed by the insurance company within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated
above.
20. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No order as to costs.
----------------------------------------------
M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J
DATE:24--11--2022
AVS
