Telangana High Court

B Yeddamma Vijaya Died Anr vs Anugu Somalaxmi, Hyderabad Anr on 26 October, 2022

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

               M.A.C.M.A. No.2758 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for

short "the Tribunal") in O.P.No.1432 of 2011 vide order and

decree, dated 11.11.2014, the appellant has preferred the

present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties

are referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that originally, the

petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased")

filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-

for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident that

took place on 17.02.2011. During the pendency of the

claim-petition, the petitioner No. 1 died and the petitioner

No. 2, the appellant herein, came on record as legal

representative of the petitioner No. 1. It is stated that on

17.02.2011, while the deceased was proceeding in Auto

MGP, J Macma_2758_2015

bearing No.AP 24 V 5998 from Thummagudem to

Valigonda and when the auto reached the outskirts of

Khammagudem village, one D.C.M. Vehicle bearing No.AP

29 V 3870, owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured

with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the

auto. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries

all over her body and immediately after the accident, she

was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally and from

there she was again shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad, where she took treatment as inpatient. On

a complaint, the Police, Valigonda, registered a case in

Crime No.30 of 2012 against the driver of the DCM Van, for

the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 of

I.P.C. The record reveals that after filing of the petition,

due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, she died on

22.10.2011. While the respondent No. 1 remained ex

parte, the respondent No. 2 contested the claim denying

MGP, J Macma_2758_2015

the averments made in the claim petition as to the age,

avocation and income of the deceased.

4. After considering the claim and the counter filed by

respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both

oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly

allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of

Rs.5,25,000/- with interest at 7.5% interest per annum to

be paid by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

Being not satisfied with the said compensation, the

appellant filed the present appeal.

5. Heard and perused the material available record.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant that although the appellant claimed that the

deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by doing stone

cutting work, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the

deceased at Rs.125/- per day which is very meager. It is

further contended that as per the principles laid down by

the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited

MGP, J Macma_2758_2015

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the appellant is also

entitled to future prospects and also Rs.77,000/- under

conventional heads.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance

company submits that since the deceased was a housewife,

the Tribunal has rightly discarded the future prospects. It

is further contended that the Tribunal has rightly awarded

Rs.15,000/- under the conventional heads, which needs no

interference by this Court.

8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner

in which the accident took place has become final as the

same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of

the vehicle.

9. A perusal of the material available on record would

show that as per Ex.A2, inquest report and Ex.A3, Post

Mortem Examination Report, the age of the deceased was

20 years. In Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_2758_2015

Bihar and others2, the Apex Court had observed that

considering the multifarious services rendered by

housewives, even on a modest estimation, the income of

housewives, between the age group of 34 to 59 years, who

were active in life, should be assessed at Rs.36,000/- per

annum. In the instant case, the deceased was aged about

20 years at the time of the accident. Hence, in view of the

above judgment of the Apex Court, the income of the

deceased is to be fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month.

10. Insofar as the future prospects to the housewives are

concerned, the Apex Court recently in Kirti and another

etc. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.3 made certain

general observations regarding the issue of calculation of

notional income for homemakers and the grant of future

prospects with respect to them, for the purposes of grant of

compensation, which can be summarized as follows:

AIR 2001 SC 3218

AIR 2021 SC 353

MGP, J Macma_2758_2015

"a. Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law.

b. Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all.

c. Various methods can be employed by the Court to fix the notional income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. The Court should ensure while choosing the method, and fixing the notional income, that the same is just in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing the compensation too conservatively, nor too liberally.

MGP, J Macma_2758_2015

e. The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation."

11. In view of above said decision, the appellant is

entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40%.

12. After considering the evidence available on record,

the Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 20

years at the time of the accident. In view of the judgment

of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation4, the suitable multiplier would be '18'. If the

income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month is taken

as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Lata Wadwa

case (supra) and if 40% of the income is added to the

actual income of the deceased towards future prospects,

the total income of the deceased would be Rs.7,000/- per

annum. From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards

personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra). After deducting

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_2758_2015

1/3rd amount towards the personal and living expenses of

the deceased, the contribution of the deceased to the family

would be Rs.4,667/- per month. Applying multiplier '18',

the total loss of dependency would be Rs.4,667/- x 12 x 18

= Rs.10,08,072/- which is rounded off to Rs.10,08,000/-.

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay

Sethi (supra), the appellant is entitled to Rs.77,000/-

under conventional heads. Thus, in all, the appellant is

entitled to Rs.10,85,000/-.

13. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the appellant claimed only a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of

compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the

claim made which is impermissible under law.

14. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional

Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and

MGP, J Macma_2758_2015

another5, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs.

Gurudayal Singh6 held as under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

15. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred

to above, the appellant is entitled to get more amount than

what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act

being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of

the appellant is a paramount consideration the Courts

should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the

appellant to a just and reasonable extent.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_2758_2015