M. Arundathi 2 Others vs Jasvinder Singh Virk Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6230 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1953 of 2010

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.3 of 2008,

dated 01.06.2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil 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 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,

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

deceased/M.Ranjith, in an accident on 01.09.2007 at 10.00 p.m..

The said accident occurred while the deceased was proceeding in

Maruthi Omni van bearing No.AP-25-TV-0122 along with others

from Balakonda village to Begumpet and when the Van reached

Shakthi Timber Depot, at the outskirts of Ramayampet village, one

Lorry bearing No. CG-04-J-4593, driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner, dashed against the Van. As a result, the

deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and later he

GAC, J MACMA.No.1953 of 2010

succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in Gandhi

hospital, Secunderabad.

4. Basing on the complaint of one Naresh, a case was registered

against the driver of the Bus in Crime No.190 of 2007 on the file of

Ramayampet Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 338 and 337 of IPC, and later, the Section of law was

altered to Section 304-A of IPC. The claimants are the parents and

brother of the deceased. It is the specific averment in the claim

petition that the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning

Rs.5,000/- per month by doing business and contributed 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.2,95,000/-.

GAC, J MACMA.No.1953 of 2010

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 not considering the income of the

deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and prayed to consider the

income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month by applying proper

multiplier and also to grant future prospects and amounts under

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

and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal confirming the

judgment of the Tribunal.

GAC, J MACMA.No.1953 of 2010

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

dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on

01.09.2007. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased. The claimants 2

and 3 are the father and brother of the deceased. In the absence of

proper evidence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased

as Rs.3,000/- per month.

12. Admittedly, the age of the deceased as on the date of the

accident was 24 years as per Exs.A-2 and A-3 i.e. inquest and

postmortem reports of the deceased respectively.

13. 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 2004.

14. As stated supra, the deceased was aged about 24 years as on

the date of the accident and the income of the deceased can be

(2011) 13 SCC 236

GAC, J MACMA.No.1953 of 2010

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 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).

15. 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

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

towards loss of estate.

16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under

the following heads;

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2017 ACJ 2700

GAC, J MACMA.No.1953 of 2010

1. Loss of dependency Rs.6,80,400/-

 2.   Funeral expenses                         Rs.15,000/-
 3.   Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to the      Rs.80,000/-
      parents of the deceased)
 4.   Loss of estate                           Rs.15,000/-
      TOTAL                                    Rs.7,90,400 /-

17. 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,

payable by the respondents jointly and severally within one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the appellants

are equally entitled for the said amount and they are permitted to

withdraw their respective shares, on payment of deficit Court fee.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 29.11.2022

ajr