Telangana High Court
O.Lalitha 5 Ors vs Mr.B.Sathaiah Anr on 24 April, 2023
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1184 of 2008
and
M.A.C.M.A.No.2514 of 2009
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Since both these appeals arise out of the same award, they are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. M.A.C.M.A.No.1184 of 2008 is preferred by the Insurance
Company aggrieved by the award and decree dated 30-11-2007 in
O.P.No.110 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for the Trial of
Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Additional Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad. M.A.
C.M.A.No.2514 of 2009 is filed by the claimants questioning the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company Mr. N.
Mohan Krishna and learned counsel for the claimants Mr. A.P.
Venugopal and perused the record.
4. The brief facts are that on 02-01-2005 at about 11.30 PM., the
deceased O.Krishna and his friend G. Narasimha were engaged a
tractor bearing No.AP 36 T 4680 to do work at Rezimental Bazar and
while the deceased was proceeding as a pillion rider on a scooter
bearing No.AP 9 N 5991 on the extreme left side of the road, the tractor
was following with the scooter and when they reached near fly over
bridge Opp;Railway Nilayam Office, Secunderabad, the driver of tractor
2 LK, J
MA CMA.No.1184 of 2008 & 2514 of 2009
drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed
against the deceased from back side, due to which the deceased fell
down on the road and sustained internal head injury and while
undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 10-01-2005.
The claimants being wife, children and parents of the deceased have
filed OP., claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the
deceased in the accident.
5. Initially, the claim petition was filed for compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- and thereafter, the claimants have filed a petition seeking
amendment of their claim as Rs.5,00,000/-.
6. Respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the
manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime
vehicle and the death of the deceased, his age, avocation and income.
It is stated that there was contributory negligence on the part of the
driver of the scooter. It is stated that the amount claimed is highly
excessive.
7. The Tribunal on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence
has granted compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
8. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the
compensation that was granted by the Tribunal is not just and
reasonable. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the
salary of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-per month and even under the
3 LK, J
MA CMA.No.1184 of 2008 & 2514 of 2009
other heads also, the amounts that were granted by the Tribunal are
not proper.
9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of scooter and he has contributed the accident, however that aspect
was not considered by the Tribunal. He submits that applying the
multiplier '17' by the Tribunal is bad and further, the Tribunal without
any basis has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-per
month.
10. In this factual backdrop, the point that arises for determination is
whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is
just and proper.
11. Coming to the contention of the Insurance Company, except
stating that the accident has happened because of the contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased, no evidence was adduced and
the other grounds which are raised are about taking the income of
deceased at Rs.3,000/-per month and applying the multiplier '17' by the
Tribunal. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Limited1, even in case of a daily labourer, the Apex Court
has taken monthly income at Rs.4,500/- without any evidence and in
this regard, this Court is inclined to take a sum of Rs.4,500/-per month
as the income of the deceased. As the age of the deceased was 30
(2011) 13 SCC 236
4 LK, J
MA CMA.No.1184 of 2008 & 2514 of 2009
years, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier '17' and there is no
illegality with the said finding of the Tribunal.
12. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was working as
labour contractor-cum-mason and also doing plumbering work and
earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month at the time of accident. In this
regard, the claimants have examined P.W.3. However, P.W.3 did not
state about the income of the deceased. As per the law laid down by
the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa's case (cited supra), this Court is
inclined to take the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-per
month. As the deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident,
40% future prospects i.e., Rs.1800/- can be added and it would come
to Rs.6,300/- per month. As the claimants are six in number, 1/4th
amount i.e., Rs.1,575/- should be deducted towards personal expenses
of the deceased, then it would come to Rs.4,725/-. As the multiplier
that is applicable to the age of the deceased is '17', loss of dependency
would come to Rs.4,725/-x12x17=9,63,900/-. Apart from that a sum of
Rs.44,000/- each i.e., Rs.2,64,000/- is granted to the claimants being
wife, children and parents of the deceased towards consortium and
Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate is granted.
Thus, in total, the claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.12,60,900 /- for the death of the deceased in the accident.
13. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied on the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.Mekala v. M.
5 LK, J
MA CMA.No.1184 of 2008 & 2514 of 2009
Malathi and another2 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, taking
into consideration the date of the accident and till the appeal
reached to the Apex Court, has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-
towards cost of litigation. Hence, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is
awarded towards cost of litigation.
14. In the light of the above discussion, the claimants are entitled for
compensation under the following heads;
1. Loss of dependency -- Rs.9,63,900/-
2. Consortium -- Rs.2,64,000/-
3. Funeral expenses -- Rs. 33,000/-
4. Legal expenses -- Rs. 10,000/-
____________
Total: Rs.12,70,900 /-
__________
15. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2514 of 2009 is allowed enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,00,000/-
to Rs.12,70,900/-.
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The claimants shall pay the Court fee on the enhanced amount.
(c) The respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the
compensation within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. On such deposit and on payment of Court fee,
2014 (5) ALD 42 (SC)
6 LK, J
MA CMA.No.1184 of 2008 & 2514 of 2009
the claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation as
apportioned by the Tribunal without furnishing any security.
16. M.A.C.M.A.No.1184 of 2008 filed by the Insurance Company is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in both the appeals shall
stand closed.
____________________________
SMT LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
24th April, 2023.
sj
