Smt.R.Rajeshwari vs M/S G.K.C.Products Ltd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5295 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No. 1902 of 2015

JUDGMENT :

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by XI

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide order dated

20.09.2014 in M.V.O.P. No. 1561 of 2012, the present appeal is filed

by the claimants.

2. On 22.04.2012, at about 16:30 hours, while the deceased, R.

Krishna @ Raju, aged about 25 years, was returning to Hyderabad

on a motorcycle, along with his friends, when they reached in front of

Sri Laxminarsimha Venture, outskirts of Raigiri Village, the offending

vehicle i.e., Water Tanker bearing No. AP 28 TB 7341, owned by the

respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by

its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came in

opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result,

the deceased fell down, crushed underneath the tanker and died on

the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was 25 years,

working in a gold shop and earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

Therefore, they laid a claim for Rs.15.00 lakhs towards compensation

under different heads.

3. The learned Tribunal, considering the claim of the appellants,

counter filed by the Insurance Company and on evaluation of oral

and documentary evidence, allowed the O.P. in part, awarding a total

compensation of Rs.8,46,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be

deposited by the respondents within three months from the date of

said order.

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

Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2.

Perused the material available on record.

5. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants-

claimants has argued that the claimants, in order to substantiate

their claim that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month

working in gold shop, produced Ex.A.6, salary certificate, issued by

the employer apart from examining P.W.3, Accountant of the

employer, who has categorically deposed that the deceased was

working in their organization for the past ten years as Salesman and

he was being paid Rs.10,000/- per month, and therefore, in the

absence of any contra evidence adduced by the Insurance Company,

the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the deceased at

Rs.10,000/- per month, but erroneously took the income at

Rs.5,000/- which is very meagre. Further, relying on the decision of

the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the learned counsel has contended

that to the existing income of the deceased, 40% ought to have been

added towards future prospects. Even the amount granted under

conventional heads is too meagre and needs enhancement as per the

decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the learned counsel

seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned

Tribunal.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company, respondent No. 2, has contended that the

learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the

same needs no interference by this Court.

7. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident

and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver in causing the accident on 22.04.2012 that resulted in the

death of the deceased. As seen from the record, the claimants-

appellants had claimed that the deceased was working as Salesman

in H. Vital Das Jewellers, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and getting

Rs.10,000/- as salary. To substantiate their claim, they have also

examined the Accountant of the said organisation as P.W.3, who has

categorically deposed that the deceased was working as Salesman in

their organisation for the past ten years and getting salary of

2017 ACJ 2700

Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no reason for the tribunal to brush

aside the said consistent evidence. Further the respondents have

not adduced any rebuttal evidence to prove that the deceased is not

working as Salesman nor earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore,

this Court is inclined to assess the income of the deceased at

Rs.10,000/- per month. Since the deceased was 28 years, as seen

from Ex.A.5, Post Mortem Examination Report, as per the decision of

the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), towards future prospects at

40% of the actual income of the deceased needs to be added. Hence,

the future income of the deceased would be Rs.14,000/- per month

(Rs.10,000 + 40% thereof). As the dependents are seven in number,

after deducting 1/5th therefrom towards personal expenses of the

deceased, the net monthly future income of the deceased is

Rs.11,200/- and the annual contribution to the family comes to

Rs.1,34,400/-. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Sarla

Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, considering

the age of the deceased as 28 years, the appropriate multiplier is '17'.

Therefore, taking the same into consideration, the total loss of

dependency of the appellants comes to Rs.22,84,800/-. Thus, under

the head of loss of dependency, the compensation is enhanced to

Rs.22,84,800/-, as against Rs.8,16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

In addition thereto, under the conventional heads, as against the

2009 (6) SCC 121

amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are

granted Rs.77,000/- as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay

Sethi (supra). Thus, in all, the compensation is enhanced to

Rs.23,61,800/-, as against Rs.8,46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.8,46,000/- to Rs.23,61,800/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of order passed by the

Tribunal till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondents

jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall be

apportioned among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered

by the Tribunal. The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee on the

enhanced compensation, since the initial claim was for

Rs.15,00,000/-. If the deficit court fee is not paid as per Rule 475 of

M.V.Rules before the Tribunal, the claimants are not entitled for

execution of Award in respect of enhanced compensation. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Date: 26.10.2022

tsr