The State Of Telangana ,Home Dept ... vs B. Narsimha , Hyd And Six Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6126 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     MA.CMA.NO.176 OF 2017 &

            CROSS-OBJECTION (SR).No.21696 OF 2018

                              JUDGMENT

Assailing the award and decree dated 27.9.2016 passed by the

Motor Accidents Tribunal -cum - III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court at Hyderabad in MVOP.No.2656 of 2013, the State of Telangana,

which is the owner of the crime vehicle, filed MA.CMA.No.176 of 2017.

Assailing the very same judgment, the claimants filed Cross-objection

(SR).No.21696 of 2018 seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that claimant No.5

- Banoth Bikya, who is the father of the claimant No.1 and grandfather of

claimants 2 to 4, and husband of claimant No.6 died on 31.12.2021, and

he filed a memo to this effect enclosing a copy of the death certificate.

3. The deceased is one B.Lalitha and the claimant No.1 is her

husband and claimants 2 to 4 are their children and claimant No.5 and 6

are her in-laws and however, as noted above, claimant No.5 died.

4. The case of the claimant is that on 2.9.2013 at about 7.30 pm.,

when the deceased was traveling as pillion rider and her brother

Dharavath Heera was riding TVS XL bearing No. AP 29AQ 2358 and

that when they reached near Bata Showroom near Ayodhya Junction,

Lakdikapool, DCM van bearing No. AP 9 P 3999 driven by its driver in a

rash and negligent manner, dashed TVS XL from behind, due to which

the deceased and the rider of the motorcycle/moped fell down and the

deceased sustained fatal injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to

Vasavi Hospital, Khairtabad and after first aid, they were shifted to Sai

Sanjeevani Hospital, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad, where the doctors declared

the deceased as dead. Police registered the case in Cr.No.477/2013 under

Section 304 (A) IPC.

5. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was aged 30 years

at the time of the accident and prior to the accident, she was doing ground

nut business and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/-. With these

averments, the claimants filed claim petition, claiming an amount of

Rs.12,00,000/-

6. The drive of the van filed counter affidavit and respondents 1

and 2 adopted the same. In the counter affidavit, while denying the

manner of accident pleaded by the claimants, and also denying the age,

avocation and income of the deceased, sought for dismissal of the claim

petition.

7. The Tribunal considering the evidence on P.W.2, who was

driving the moped at the time of accident, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5,

held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the crime vehicle i.e., DCM van bearing registration No. AP 9P

3999. Further taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month

and after deducting 1/4th towards personal and living expenses, and

adding 50% future prospects, and by applying the multiplier of 17, as the

deceased was found to be aged 30 years, granted an amount of

Rs.10,32,750/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal further granted

an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st claimant towards loss of consortium,

Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards

funeral expenses and thus, in all, granted an amount of Rs.12,57,750/-

with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the

claim petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal also passed orders

with regard to apportionment of compensation.

8. As stated above, aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the

State filed the appeal and the claimants filed the cross objection seeking

enhancement of compensation.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration

appearing for the appellants submitted that the claimants have not filed

any proof with regard to age, income and occupation of the deceased and

in these circumstances, taking the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-

per month, and applying the multiplier of 17, by taking the age of the

deceased as 30, cannot be sustained. He further submitted that the

Tribunal granted the future prospects at the rate of 50%, which is

excessive. He submits that the 1st claimant, who is the husband of the

deceased, cannot be treated as the dependant on the deceased. He further

submitted that the rider of the TVS XL is at fault, and there is no

negligence on the part of the drive of the van. With these submissions, he

sought to set aside the impugned order.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants

Sri P.Rama Krishna Reddy, submitted that the deceased was a home

maker and even in the absence of any evidence, her income can be taken

as Rs.6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the income of the

deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month which is very meager, and hence the

same may be enhanced. With regard to other heads, the learned counsel

supported the impugned judgment.

11. The case of the claimants is already noted at the threshold and

in support of their claim that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., DCM Van bearing

AP 9P 3999, they also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5, which are the certified

copies of FIR, Charge Sheet, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Examination

report and MVI report. P.W.2 was riding the moped at the time of

accident. He categorically deposed that accident has occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the van. The respondents before the

Tribunal, which are the State authorities, have not chosen to lead any

evidence, either oral or documentary, rebutting the evidence led by the

claimants. Considering the evidence of P.W.2, coupled with Exs.A-1 to

A-5, the Tribunal recorded finding that the accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the crime van. Learned counsel for

the appellant - State has not pointed out any contra evidence to interfere

with the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. Having regard to the facts

and circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van, needs no

interference.

12. Coming to quantum, the case of the claimant is that the

deceased was aged 30 years, and was doing business in sale of

groundnuts and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is to be

noticed that as per Exs.A-1 to A-5, the age of the deceased is noted as 30

years. But with regard to income, no tangible evidence is filed.

However, it is to be noticed that the deceased is a homemaker and the

multifarious role of a homemaker is more than a skilled worker. Hence,

in these circumstances, I am inclined to take the monthly income of the

deceased as Rs.5,500/- per month. The income of the deceased taken by

the Tribunal at Rs.4,500/- per month, is accordingly modified. Thus the

annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.66,000/- per month. As per

the judgment of the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LTD. v. PRANAY SETHI1, for the age group of the

deceased, an addition of 40% has to be made to the established income of

the deceased. But the Tribunal granted 50% towards future prospects,

and hence in light of the judgment of the Apex Court (1) the same is

accordingly modified and future prospects are taken at 40%. 40% of

66,000/- comes to Rs.26,400/-. Thus the annual income of the deceased

including future prospects comes to Rs.92,400/-.

13. The number of claimants, who are the dependants of the

deceased are five in number, and as such deduction towards personal and

living expenses of the deceased shall be at the rate of 1/4th. If 1/4th is

deducted from Rs.92,4000/-, the income that the deceased would be

contributing to his family comes to Rs.69,300/-.

14. The deceased is found to be aged 30 years, and hence as per

the judgment of the Apex Court in SMT. SARLA VARMA vs. DELHI

TRANSPORT CORPORATION2, the appropriate multiplier is '17'.

AIR 2017 SC 5157

(2009)6 SCC 121

Thus the loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,78,100/- (Rs.69,300/- x 17 =

Rs.11,78,100/-).

15. Further as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay

Sethi's case, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- towards

conventional heads. Thus the amounts granted under these heads by the

Tribunal are accordingly modified.

16. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the decision reported

in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v NANU RAM3, the

claimants 2 to 4, who are minors at the time of accident, are entitled to

Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. Thus, they are

entitled to Rs.1,20,000/- under this head.

17. Thus, the amount of Rs.12,57,750/- granted by the Tribunal is

enhanced to Rs.13,75,100/- (Rs.11,78,100/- + Rs.77,000/- + Rs.1,20,000/-

= Rs.13,75,100/-.)

18. The appellants in MACMA.No.176 of 2017 are liable to pay

the compensation. The compensation amount shall be deposited within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(2018)18 SCC 130

19. The apportionment of the compensation among the claimants

shall be as ordered by the Tribunal. Further, the order of the Tribunal

with regard to deposit of the amount in nationalized bank and its

withdrawal is confirmed. Since claimant No.5 died, his share of

compensation shall be paid to claimants 2 to 4, who are the children of

the deceased, in equal ratio.

20. Any amount already deposited by the appellants, shall be given

credit to. The claimants shall pay the deficit court fee.

21. As there is modification with regard to future prospects and

also the amounts granted under conventional heads, the appeal filed by

the State is partly allowed, and similarly as there is enhancement of

compensation, the cross-objections are allowed to the extent indicated

above.

21. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No order as to costs.

-----------------------------------------------

M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J DATE:24--11--2022 AVS