Neerudi Pentamma 2 Others vs Masai Durgaiah Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5013 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.788 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the award dated 03.07.2015

in O.P.No.139 of 2014, on the file of the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy

(for short 'the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed

by appellants herein seeking compensation was allowed-in-part,

awarding Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the

date of petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent-claimant. Perused the material on

record.

3. The appellants herein filed claim application seeking

compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on account of death of the deceased

Neerudi Balaiah Ramavath @ Angoth Penti, who died in a motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 06.04.2014 at 04:00 p.m.

According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased was

travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 25 X 4024 from Yellareddy to

Gopalpet Village and when it reached near Banjara Thanda of

Nagireddypet Mandal, the driver of the auto drove the same in a

rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, it turned turtle,

resulting in the deceased receiving grievous injuries. The deceased

was shifted to Sigma Hospital, Secunderbad and from there to

Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad and while undergoing treatment, he

succumbed to the same on 09.04.2014. Police, Nagireddypet

registered a case in Cr.No.47 of 2014 against the driver of the auto

for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A IPC. Claimant

No.1 is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of

the deceased. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged

60 years at the time of accident and was a retired lineman and was

also having cattle and vegetable business and earning an income of

Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing the same to the family.

4. Respondent No.1-insured remained ex parte before the

Tribunal. Respondent No.2-insurer filed counter opposing the

claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.

5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the auto by its driver. The said finding has

become final, as no appeal is preferred by the respondents.

The Tribunal further held that the claimant was entitled for a total

compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal

seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. The only question that arises for consideration is - whether

the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation, and if

so, to what extent?

7. The relationship between the claimants and the deceased is

not disputed. Claimant No.1 is the wife and claimants 2 and 3 are

the son and daughter respectively of the deceased. According to

the claimants, the deceased was aged 60 years and was a retired

lineman and also doing cattle and vegetable business earning

monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. However, as the claimants failed

to produce any reliable evidence, either oral or documentary, the

Tribunal had taken into consideration the notional income of the

deceased at Rs.3,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimants contends

to consider that the deceased was retired lineman and also having

business in cattle and vegetable and his income may be fixed at

Rs.5,000/- per month, instead of Rs.3,000/- per month. However,

as there is no oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the said

contention, the Tribunal had rightly taken into consideration the

income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting

one third towards personal and living expenses, fixed the income of

the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum

and applied the multiplier '7', as the deceased was in the age group

of 60 to 65 years as per the post-mortem examination report Ex.P-4

and arrived at the loss of dependency at Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.24,000/-

x 7). The Tribunal had awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss of

consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/-

towards funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total

compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.

8. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.

PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS1, the claimants are entitled for

an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/-

2017 ACJ 2700

towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral

expenses. As the accident occurred on 06.04.2014 and the petition

was filed for the same relief, as per the above decision, the

conventional heads have to be quantified with enhanced percentage

basis at 10% for every three years. As the claim petition is filed in

the year 2014, the claimants are entitled for 20% enhancement i.e.,

Rs.84,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + Rs.14,000/- i.e., 20% of Rs.70,000/-).

Claimants 2 and 3 being the children of the deceased are entitled to

parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- each as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LTD. v. NANU RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM

AND OTHERS2's case. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to

a compensation of Rs.3,32,000/- (Rs.1,68,000/- + Rs.84,000/- +

Rs.80,000/-).

9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed-in-

part. The award of the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.3,32,000/-. The enhanced

amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award

2 (2018) 18 SCC 130

passed by the Tribunal i.e., 03.07.2015 till the date of realization,

payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The amount

of compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants in the

ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to

costs.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 11.10.2022 Lrkm