Telangana High Court

The National Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Vishwasamma And 2 Others on 16 September, 2022

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.502 of 2008
                              and
             Cross-Objection Appeal No.15443 of 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT :

        The appeal is arising out of the order dated 20.09.2007, in

O.P.No.1702 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. For the

sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the OP.


2.      The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company i.e. respondent

No.2 in the O.P. The O.P. is filed before the Tribunal under

Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming

compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of one Pendigamu

Premanandam in the accident occurred on 20.10.2003 at Armoor

village.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimants are

entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,60,600/- with proportionate

costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum and apportioned the said

GAC, J MACMA.No.502 of 2008 and Cross-Obj.Appeal No.15443 of 2008

amount amongst the claimants. Aggrieved by the said order, the

insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record.

5. It is relevant to mention that this matter was referred to Lok

Adalat at the instance of the appellant/Insurance Company and an

award was passed on 11.12.2021 permitting the Insurance

Company to withdraw the appeal with a direction to deposit the

amount within one month from the date of the award and the

claimants were permitted to withdraw their shares as apportioned

by the Tribunal.

6. It is also pertinent to mention that the cross-objections were

filed by the claimants in this appeal vide Cross-Objections Appeal

No.15443 of 2008, seeking to grant more compensation.

7. Though the appeal has been withdrawn by way of award, the

cross-objections which are filed by the claimants can be treated as

cross-appeal of the claimants. It is also important to note that

GAC, J MACMA.No.502 of 2008 and Cross-Obj.Appeal No.15443 of 2008

in spite of the award passed by the Lok Adalat, the MACMA is not

disposed of by this Court till date.

8. It is the contention of the claimants that the Tribunal ought

to have considered the income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per

month as a Pastor in the Church and also ought to have applied the

multiplier '14' instead of '9', as the age of the deceased at the time

of the accident was 40 years.

9. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is

evident that as per Ex.A-11/Certificate issued by Rev.P.Shadrach

on behalf of Jesus Loves Full Gospel Ministries, the deceased

Premanand was the Pastor of the said Church from 1988 to 2006

and his salary was fixed as Rs.1,500/- per month and apart from the

salary, the deceased used to get Rs.600/- per month towards

delivering of religious speeches in different villages, and thus, he

used to earn a total amount of Rs.6,300/- per month.

10. In view of the above certificate, this Court is of the

considered view that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of

GAC, J MACMA.No.502 of 2008 and Cross-Obj.Appeal No.15443 of 2008

the deceased as Rs.6,300/- per month. Though it is contended by

PW-1 in her evidence that the income of the deceased is

Rs.10,000/- per month, it cannot be considered, in view of the oral

evidence of PW-3 and documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A-11 placed

before the Tribunal by the claimants themselves. Hence, the

income of the deceased can be taken into consideration as

Rs.6,300/- per month.

11. On perusal of the documentary evidence, it is evident from

Ex.A-2 as well as Ex.A-5, that the age of the deceased was

mentioned as 40 years, but as per Ex.A-10, which is the certificate

issued by PW-3, the age of the deceased is 46 years. Moreover,

Ex.A-12/the identity card issued by the Election Commission of

India disclose that the deceased was aged 40 years as on

01.01.1995 and if that is taken into consideration, the age of the

deceased as on the date of accident which occurred in the year

2003, would be 48 years. However, it is pertinent to mention that

the Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 45 years,

which is not at all disputed by the Insurance Company. Hence, the

GAC, J MACMA.No.502 of 2008 and Cross-Obj.Appeal No.15443 of 2008

age of the deceased is considered as 45 years. But, the Tribunal

has wrongly applied the multiplier '9' instead of '14'. In view of

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation & another1, for the age group of

40 to 45 years, the multiplier applicable is '14'.

12. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,53,600/- towards loss of

dependency and also awarded further amounts of Rs.2,000/- and

Rs.5,000/- under other heads, which are not specified in the award,

and thus, granted total compensation of Rs.4,60,600/-.

13. As discussed above, the age of the deceased is taken as 45

years and his income is taken as Rs.6,300/- per month and the

annual income would come to Rs.75,600/-. As per the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi & others2, if 25% of future prospects is added, it

would come to Rs.94,500/- (Rs.75,600 + Rs.18,900/-). If 1/3rd is

deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, his

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2017 ACJ 2700

GAC, J MACMA.No.502 of 2008 and Cross-Obj.Appeal No.15443 of 2008

contribution to the family would come to Rs.63,000/- (Rs.94,500 -

Rs.31,500). If multiplier '14' is applied, it would come to

Rs.8,82,000/- (Rs.63,000 X 14). Therefore, the claimants are

entitled to Rs.8,82,000/- towards loss of dependency.

14. The first and second claimants are the wife and daughter of

the deceased respectively. Claimants 1 and 2 are entitled to

Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards

funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

15. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the

following heads:

1.    Loss of dependency                       Rs.8,82,000/-
2.    Funeral expenses                         Rs.15,000/-
3.    Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each)            Rs.80,000/-
4.    Loss of estate                           Rs.15,000/-
      TOTAL                                    Rs.9,92,000/-

16. Accordingly, the Cross-objections of the claimants is

allowed, granting a total compensation of Rs.9,92,000/- with costs

and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of realisation. Both the claimants are equally entitled

GAC, J MACMA.No.502 of 2008 and Cross-Obj.Appeal No.15443 of 2008

for the said compensation. Taking into consideration that the

accident occurred in the year 2003, the claimants are permitted to

withdraw the amount along with costs and interest only on

payment of deficit Court fee.

17. Accordingly, the orders of the Tribunal in MVOP.No.1702

of 2003, dated 20.09.2007 stands modified, and MACMA.No.502

of 2008 stands disposed of.