Shaik Saheeda Died And 3 Others vs Advanced Drivers Training ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6183 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.2840 of 2009

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.1292 of

2003, dated 26.06.2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

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 163(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act,

claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of

the deceased/Shaik Mohammad Bagees, in the accident which

occurred on 05.09.2002. On the said date, while the deceased was

proceeding on his scooter towards Golconda, and when he reached

Gandipet road along with his brother Salesh Bagees, one military

truck bearing No.95-D-100614H, driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed against the scooter from behind. As a

result, the deceased and his brother sustained grievous bleeding

GAC, J MACMA.No.2840 of 2009

injuries and when shifted to Osmania Government hospital, the

Doctor declared Mohd. Bagees (deceased) as brought dead.

4. Basing on the complaint of the brother of the deceased, a

case was registered against the driver of the military Truck. The

claimants are the parents and siblings of the deceased. It is the

specific averment that the deceased was hale and healthy and was

drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- as a Salesman in a private

organisation 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.2,41,000/-.

7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal for

GAC, J MACMA.No.2840 of 2009

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 did not consider

Ex.A-5/the salary certificate of the deceased and instead of it,

considered the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month

while calculating the compensation and prayed to consider the

income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month by applying the

multiplier '18' and also to grant future prospects and amounts

under other Notional heads while calculating the compensation.

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

and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal confirming the

judgment of the Tribunal.

GAC, J MACMA.No.2840 of 2009

11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no

dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on

05.09.2002. PW-1 is the mother and PW-2 is the brother of the

deceased, respectively. The Tribunal has taken the age of the

mother of the deceased into consideration. Ex.A-5/salary

certificate was discarded/disbelieved by the Tribunal as the author

of Ex.A-5 was not examined, further taken the income of the

deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month and applied the multiplier '14'

considering the age of the mother of the deceased. Admittedly, the

age of the deceased was 23 years as per Exs.A-2 and A-3 i.e.

inquest and postmortem reports of the deceased respectively.

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 2002.

(2011) 13 SCC 236

GAC, J MACMA.No.2840 of 2009

13. As already stated supra, the deceased was aged about 23

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). The

claimants in this case are four in number and therefore, 1/4th of the

earnings of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased. But, in the present case, as the deceased

is an unmarried person, therefore, 50% of his earnings have 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, parents of the

deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium and

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2017 ACJ 2700

GAC, J MACMA.No.2840 of 2009

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate.

15. Thus, the claimants are 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   the Rs.80,000/-
      parents of the deceased)
 4.   Loss of estate                           Rs.15,000/-
      TOTAL                                    Rs.7,90,400 /-

16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of, 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.

Claimant Nos.3 and 4 were minors and were aged 14 and 10 years

respectively as on the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. on

08.05.2003, and now, they became majors. Therefore, all the

appellants are equally entitled for the compensation amount and

they are permitted to withdraw their respective shares, on payment

of deficit Court fee.

GAC, J MACMA.No.2840 of 2009

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 28.11.2022

ajr