Smt.Laxmi 3 Ors vs Radhakrishna Rao 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6266 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.580 of 2013

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.424 of

2002, dated 18.07.2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-XII 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 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of the

deceased/Gannoji Ramesh, in the accident which occurred on

03.12.2001 at about 9.30 p.m.. The said accident occurred while

the deceased and his family members were returning from

Tirupathi and when their car reached the limits of Kondapur Police

Station, one oil tanker bearing No.AP-12-U-858, driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the car of the

GAC, J MACMA.No.580 of 2013

deceased. As a result, the deceased died on the spot and the family

members of the deceased were shifted to hospital.

4. Basing on the complaint of the inmates of the car, a case was

registered against the driver of the oil tanker in Crime No.69 of

2001 on the file of Kondapur Police Station for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The claimants are the

wife, son and parents of the deceased. It is the specific averment in

the claim petition that the deceased was a driver and earning

Rs.3,000/- per month and was contributing the same to the family.

He was aged about 23 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 Tanker.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/-.

GAC, J MACMA.No.580 of 2013

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.3,000/- per month and prayed to consider the said

income and apply appropriate 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.580 of 2013

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

dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on

03.12.2001. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased. Claimant Nos.2 to

4 are the son and parents of the deceased. In the absence of proper

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

Rs.2,000/- per month.

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

accident was 23 years as per Exs.A-3 and A-4 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. Though it

is contended that the deceased was a driver, there is no

documentary evidence on record to prove the occupation of the

deceased as driver. Even the driving licence of the deceased was

not placed before the Tribunal to consider the deceased as driver.

Therefore, taking into consideration the above said proposition, the

(2011) 13 SCC 236

GAC, J MACMA.No.580 of 2013

income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.4,500/- per month, even

assuming the deceased as a coolie.

14. 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). 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 '18' for the age group of 21

to 25 years. If the annual income and multiplier '18' are applied,

then, the loss of earnings of the deceased would be Rs.10,20,600/-

(Rs.4,725 X 12 X 18).

15. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others3, wife, son and

parents of the deceased are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2017 ACJ 2700

GAC, J MACMA.No.580 of 2013

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;

1.    Loss of dependency                       Rs.10,20,600/-
2.    Funeral expenses                         Rs.15,000/-
3.    Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each to the      Rs.1,60,000/-
      wife, son and parents of the deceased)
4.    Loss of estate                           Rs.15,000/-
      TOTAL                                    Rs.12,10,600 /-

17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total

compensation of Rs.12,10,600/- with costs and interest at the rate

of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and

severally within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. Claimant No.2 is the minor son of the deceased as on

the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. in the year 2002 and now

he has become major. Therefore, 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.

GAC, J MACMA.No.580 of 2013

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 30.11.2022

ajr