Telangana High Court
Katravath Mozan And 3 Others vs Korra Raju And Another on 30 November, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1622 of 2010
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.1243 of
2006, dated 07.04.2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy.
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 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of death of the
deceased/K.Amarsingh, in the accident on 24.09.2006 at about 8.00
p.m. at KPHB bus stop. The said accident occurred while the
deceased was walking on the road, he was hit by the lorry bearing
No.AP-28-W-4250, being driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner at a high speed. As a result, the deceased
sustained multiple grievous injuries and was shifted to Remedy
hospital, from there to NIMS hospital and from there to Osmania
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1622 of 2010
Government hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries while
undergoing treatment.
4. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered against the
driver of the lorry in Crime No.1083 of 2006 on the file of
Kukatpally 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 wife,
daughter and sons of the deceased. It is the specific averment in
the claim petition that the deceased was a lorry driver and was
earning Rs.10,000/- per month and was contributing the same to
the family. He was aged about 32 years as on the date of accident.
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.2,49,500/-.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1622 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.10,000/- per month and prayed to consider the
income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- 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.1622 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
24.09.2006. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased. Claimant Nos.2 to
4 are the daughter and sons of the deceased. In the absence of
proper evidence, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased
as Rs.2,000/- per month. It is pertinent to mention that the claim
petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but
the Tribunal has awarded compensation under Section 163-A of the
Act.
12. Admittedly, the age of the deceased as on the date of the
accident was 32 years as per Exs.P-2 and P-3 i.e. the 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. Though it
is contended that the deceased was a lorry driver, there is no
documentary evidence on record to prove the occupation of the
deceased as lorry driver. Even the driving licence of the deceased
(2011) 13 SCC 236
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1622 of 2010
was not placed before the Tribunal to consider the deceased as
lorry driver. Therefore, taking into consideration the above said
proposition, the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.4,500/- per
month, assuming the deceased as a coolie.
14. As stated supra, the deceased was aged about 32 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). As the claimants are
four in number, 1/4th has to be deducted towards his personal
expenses. Thus, his contribution towards family would come to
Rs.4,725/-. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2,
the multiplier applicable is '16' for the age group of 31 to 35 years.
If the annual income and multiplier '16' are applied, then, the loss
of earnings of the deceased would be Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.4,725 X 12
X 16).
(2009) 6 SCC 121
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1622 of 2010
15. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others3, wife and children
of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards
consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate.
16. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation under
the following heads;
1. Loss of dependency Rs.9,07,200/-
2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to the Rs.1,60,000/-
wife and 3 children of the deceased)
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL Rs.10,97,200 /-
17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total
compensation of Rs.10,97,200/- with costs and interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Claimant
Nos.2 to 4 are minors as on the date of filing of the claim petition
i.e. in the year 2006 and now they became majors. Therefore, all
2017 ACJ 2700
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1622 of 2010
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: 30.11.2022
ajr
