Telangana High Court

Smt.Kursheed Begum 3 Ors vs The Sardar Vallabhai Patel ... on 21 September, 2022

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3701 of 2008

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the orders in MVOP.No.170 of

2002, dated 06.04.2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC),

Ranga Reddy.

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

death of the deceased/Istar Ahmed, in the accident which occurred

on 09.01.2002 at 11.30 p.m., near Police Academy main gate on

N.H.No.7, while the deceased was returning to his house on his

scooter from Tadbur, and one Jeep bearing No.AP-28-D-8417

came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

against the scooter of the deceased, due to which, he fell down,

sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the

complaint of a family member of the deceased, a case was

GAC, J MACMA.No.3701 of 2008

registered against the driver of the Jeep, in Crime No.10 of 2002

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

parents and sisters of the deceased.

4. It is relevant to mention that the Deputy Director of Sardar

Vallabhai Patel National Police Academy was arrayed as

respondent as the Jeep is registered on the name of the Deputy

Director and it has no insurance.

5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondent

disputing the age, income and driving licence of the deceased. It

was further contended that there was no negligence on the part of

the driver of the Jeep.

6. 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.2,04,000/- with interest @ 9%

per annum. It is important to note that during the pendency of the

claim petition, the 2nd claimant died and no amount was

apportioned to him and the amount of 3rd and 4th claimants was

kept in fixed deposit.

GAC, J MACMA.No.3701 of 2008

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 only.

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 fixing the income of the deceased as

Rs.3,000/- per month, though there is documentary evidence on

record as to the earnings of the deceased at Rs.6,050/- per month.

It is further contended that the Tribunal has erred in calculating the

compensation by deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/4th from the earnings

of the deceased towards his personal expenses, as the claimants are

four in number. It is further contended by the learned counsel for

the appellants/claimants that the appellants are entitled for

compensation under other conventional heads and accordingly

prayed to allow the appeal.

GAC, J MACMA.No.3701 of 2008

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

dispute as to the manner in which the accident had occurred on

09.01.2002. PW-1 is the mother of the deceased, who deposed

about the age of the deceased as 33 years as on the date of accident

and the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month as a

painter in K.K. Enterprises. PW-2 is the eyewitness to the

accident. Exs.A-1 and A-2 are the FIR and charge sheet filed in

Crime No.10 of 2002 on the file of Rajendranagar Police Station.

Exs.A-3 and A-5 are the inquest and Postmortem reports of the

deceased respectively, which clearly disclose that the deceased

died in a motor vehicle accident, due to the rash and negligent act

of the driver of the Jeep. Ex.A-4 is the MVI report, which clearly

disclose that there were no mechanical defects in the Jeep at the

time of the accident. The charge sheet disclose that the driver of

the Jeep drove the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner at a high

speed and hit the deceased, and as a result, the death of the

deceased occurred. The oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the

documentary evidence in Exs.A-1 to A-5 corroborate with each

other as to the manner in which the accident had occurred and as to

GAC, J MACMA.No.3701 of 2008

the age of the deceased. Ex.A-6 is the pay slip of the deceased

issued by K.K. Enterprises, which clearly disclose that the

deceased used to get a gross pay of Rs.6,050/- and after deductions,

he used to get a net income of Rs.5,425/-.

11. PW-3 is the employer of the deceased. His evidence clearly

disclose that the deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month, but

the Tribunal did not consider the oral evidence of PW-3 and also

the documentary evidence in Ex.A-6 and fixed the income of the

deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month with a finding that PW-3 did not

produce any record as to the ownership of the Firm.

12. The fact in issue before the Tribunal is, "whether the

claimants are entitled for compensation for the death of the

deceased and whether the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the

amount" ? The Tribunal ought not have discarded the oral

evidence of PW-3 and the documentary evidence in Ex.P-6, as it is

not the question before the Tribunal whether PW-3 is the owner of

K.K.Enterprises or not ? Admittedly, the respondent has not

disputed the ownership of PW-3. Proper reasons are not assigned

GAC, J MACMA.No.3701 of 2008

by the Tribunal for discarding the said evidence. Hence, taking

into consideration Ex.P-6, the income of the deceased can be taken

as Rs.6,000/- per month.

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

Tribunal has awarded the following amounts under different heads;

    1.   Loss of dependency                       Rs.1,92,000/-
    2.   Funeral expenses                         Rs.2,000/-
    3.   Loss of Estate                           Rs.10,000/-
         TOTAL                                    Rs.2,04,000/-

14. Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 33 years as on the

date of the accident and the income of the deceased, as stated

supra, is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. If 40% future prospects is

added, it would come to Rs.8,400/- per month (Rs.6,000+2,400).

As the deceased was an unmarried person, 50% of his earnings are

to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Thus, his

contribution to the family would come to Rs.4,200/-. As per the

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

Transport Corporation & another1, the multiplier applicable is

'16' for the age group of 31 to 35 years. If the annual income and

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GAC, J MACMA.No.3701 of 2008

multiplier '16' are applied, then, the loss of earnings of the

deceased would come to Rs.8,06,400/- (Rs.4,200 X 12 X 16).

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

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others2,

claimants 1 to 3 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.

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

the following heads;

    1.   Loss of dependency                    Rs.8,06,400/-
    2.   Funeral expenses                      Rs.15,000/-
    3.   Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each)         Rs.1,20,000/-
    4.   Loss of estate                        Rs.15,000/-
         TOTAL                                 Rs.9,56,400 /-

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

compensation of Rs.9,56,400/- with costs and interest at the rate of

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

As already stated supra, the 2nd claimant is no more. Therefore,

claimant Nos.1, 3 and 4 being the mother and sisters of the

2017 ACJ 2700

GAC, J MACMA.No.3701 of 2008

deceased, are equally entitled for the said amount, on payment of

deficit Court fee, and they are permitted to withdraw the same, as

the accident occurred in 2002.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.