Purlapally Srinu 3 Others vs G Shobha Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1823 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.4174 OF 2014


JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners

aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21.04.2014, passed in

O.P.No.526 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-Cum-XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a

claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the

account of the death of P. Venkatamma @ Venkamma

(hereinafter referred to as "deceased") stating that on

26.03.2012 while the deceased, who was aged 60 years, was

sitting in front of her hut (house bearing No.3-62) at about

07.00 hours, one Tanker bearing No.AP-12-U-8240 came at a

high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the

deceased and hut of the deceased and ran over the deceased.

As a result, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries 2 RRN,J MACMA No.4174 of 2014

and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, and the

deceased succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and

respondent No.2/ Insurance Company filed counter denying

the petition allegations.

5. To prove their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1

and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of respondent

No.2/ Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced but

Ex.B1/Policy was marked.

6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the

Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of

Rs.4,44,715/- to the petitioners. Challenging the same, the

present appeal is filed by the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inter-

alia contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the

monthly income of the deceased and not granted compensation

amount under conventional heads. Hence, prayed to allow the

appeal. He relied upon the judgments reported in the case of

Laxmidhar Nayak and others V. Jugal Kishore Behera 3 RRN,J MACMA No.4174 of 2014

and others1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court fixed the

monthly income of a lady labourer at Rs.4,500/- per month i.e.

Rs.3,000/- as an agricultural labourer and Rs.1,500/- for

household work.

He also relied upon the judgment reported in the case of

K. Ramya & others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and

another2; wherein the Apex Court held:

"It is a settled proposition, now through a catena of decisions including the one rendered by the Constitutions Bench in Pranaya Sethi that compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Further, the determination of quantum is a fact dependent exercise which must be liberal and not parsimonious. It must be emphasized that compensation is a more comprehensive form of pecuniary relief which involves a broad-based approach unlike damages. Tribunals under the Act have been granted reasonable flexibility in determining "just" compensation and are not bound by any rigid arithmetic rules or strict evidentiary standards to compute loss unlike in the case of damages. Hence, any interference by the Appellate Courts should ordinarily be allowed only when the compensation is "exorbitant" or "arbitrary".

He also relied upon the judgment reported in the case of

Anjali & others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and another3 wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred by not

making any additions to future prospects on the income of the

deceased, whereas the High Court by placing reliance on Sarla

2018(1)SCC 746

2022(14) SCALE

2022(14) SCALE 4 RRN,J MACMA No.4174 of 2014

Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation4 and Pranay Sethi

Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.5 held that since the

deceased was under 40 years of age and was self-employed, he

be entitled to the addition of future prospects of 40% of his

established income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found no

error in the High Court's reasoning for adding 40% of the

deceased's income towards future prospects. Accordingly,

prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal was justified in

passing the impugned order, which calls for no interference by

this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10. Having considered the rival contentions of both

parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal

ought to have considered the monthly income of the deceased

on the higher side instead of Rs.4,500/-. As the Tribunal

considered that the income of the deceased could be

considered as per wages, it would be just and reasonable to

take into consideration the monthly income of the deceased at

(2009) 6 SCC 121.

(2017) 16 SCC 680.

                                 5                               RRN,J
                                                           MACMA No.4174 of 2014

Rs.5,000/- and the contention of the petitioners that the

deceased's income should be taken at Rs.6,000/- p.m is

rejected. However, the Tribunal wrongly added 15% towards

future prospects instead of 10% as per Pranay Sethi (supra)

as the deceased was aged 60 years. The annual income of the

deceased including future prospects would come to

Rs.66,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + 10% x 12). The appropriate

multiplier as per the decision of Sarla Verma (supra) is "9".

After deducting 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses

which the deceased might have spent for herself, the total loss

of dependency would come to Rs.4,45,500/- (Rs.66,000 - 1/4

x 9).

11. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral

expenses. However, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.16,500/-

towards funeral expenses and Rs.16,500/- towards loss of

estate as per Pranay Sethi (supra). Learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the petitioners are entitled to a

consortium under Pranay Sethi (supra) and under Magma

General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru

Ram6 but the same is rejected as all the petitioners are majors

2018 (18) SCC 130 6 RRN,J MACMA No.4174 of 2014

and the consortium under the head of 'Parental Consortium'

cannot be granted to them.

12. In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.4,78,000/-

towards compensation (Rs.4,45,000/- + 33,000/-).

13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part and

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is

enhanced from Rs.4,44,175/- to Rs.4,78,000/- (Rupees Four

Lakh and Seventy Eight Thousand only) with interest @7.5 %

p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said

amount with costs and interest after deducting the amount if

any already deposited, within two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the

petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same in the manner

and proportion as determined by the Tribunal. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

27th day of April, 2023 BDR