Telangana High Court
Saber Ali 5 Others vs Sri E. Sudershan Reddy Another on 28 November, 2022
Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
MA.CMA.NO.2188 OF 2016
JUDGMENT
Being dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the court of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge) at
Nizamabad in O.P.No.7 of 2007, the claimants filed the present appeal
seeking enhancement.
2. The deceased is one Smt. Razia Begum, and the claimants are
her husband and children.
3. The case of the claimants is that on 7.9.2006 at about 11.15 pm.,
the deceased along with others were traveling in an auto bearing No. AP
25 V 0021 from Perkit to Dichpally side, and when the auto was stopped
in Jakranpally village on N.H.No.7 , at about 11.40 p.m., one tipper
bearing No. ATV 7020 came from back side in a rash and negligent
manner, and in high speed, dashed against the auto, as a result, the
passengers traveling in the auto sustained injuries and the deceased, who
sustained grievous injures in the accident, died in Government Hospital,
Armoor, while undergoing treatment.
4. The further case of the claimant is that the deceased was earning
an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month by doing beedi rolling work. With
these averments, the claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.
5. The respondents 1 and 2, who are the insured and the insurer of
the crime vehicle filed counter affidavits and contested the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal based on the evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye
witness to the accident, coupled with Ex.A-1 to A-5, and in the absence
of any rebuttal evidence by the respondents, held that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper
belonging to the 1st respondent.
7. With regard to quantum, the Tribunal taking the income of the
deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month and by deducting 1/3rd towards
personal expenses and by applying the multiplier of 13, granted an
amount of Rs.2,08,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal
further granted an amount of 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/-
towards loss of consortium, and thus, in all, granted an amount of
Rs.2,15,000/- 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 noted above, not being satisfied with the compensation
granted by the Tribunal, the claimants filed the present appeal.
9. Heard Sri Amrutha Sanjeeva, learned counsel for the claimants,
Sri D.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and
Sri Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
2nd respondent - Insurance Company.
10. In the present case, the case of the claimants is that the
deceased was a beedi roller and was earning an amount of Rs.7,000/- per
month. But there is no evidence in this regard. However, if the deceased
is taken as a home maker, considering her multifarious duties, she can be
considered more than a skilled worker. Hence, I am inclined to take her
earnings as Rs.4,500/- per month. The amount of Rs.2,000/- taken by the
Tribunal are very meager, and they are accordingly modified. Thus, the
annual earnings of the deceased comes to Rs.54,000/-.
11. As per postmortem certificate Ex.A-4, the age of the deceased
is mentioned as 50 years. Hence, the age of the deceased is taken as 50
yeas. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. PRANAY SETHI1, she is entitled to future
prospects of 25%. 25% of Rs.54,000/- comes to Rs.13,500/-. Thus the
annual income of the deceased including future prospects comes to
Rs.67,500/-.
AIR 2017 SC 5157
12. The claimants are the dependants of the deceased, and they are
six in number and hence as per the judgment of the Apex Court in
SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION2, the
deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased shall be
1/4th. But the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd, and the same is accordingly
modified. If 1/4th is deducted from Rs.67,500/-, the amount that the
deceased would be contributing to her family per annum comes to
Rs.50,625/-. For the age group of the deceased, who is '50', the
appropriate multiplier is '13'. Thus the amount towards loss of
dependency comes to Rs.6,58,125/- (Rs.50,625/- x '13' = Rs.6,58,125/-).
13. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case,
the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- towards conventional heads
(Rs.44,000/- to the 1st claimant towards loss of consortium, Rs.16,500/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral charges) . The
amounts granted by the Tribunal under these heads, is accordingly
enhanced. The claimant Nos.5 and 6, who are minor children, are entitled
to an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium as
per the judgment of the Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANU RAM3 and the same is accordingly
granted.
(2009)6 SCC 121
(2018)18 SCC 130
14. Thus, the amount of Rs.2,15,000/- granted by the Tribunal is
enhanced to Rs.8,15,125/- (Rs.6,58,125/- + Rs.77,000/- Rs.80,000/- =
Rs.8,15,125/-) 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 respondents 1
and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
15. The apportionment of compensation among the claimants, and
its deposit in nationalized bank and withdrawal shall be as ordered by the
Tribunal.
16. The respondents shall deposit the compensation within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Any amount already deposited shall be given credit to. The appellants /
claimants shall deposit the deficit court fee.
17. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated
above.
18. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
No order as to costs.
------------------------------------------
M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J
DATE:28--11--2022
avs
