Telangana High Court

Gudiwada Muralidhar Naidu And Another vs A. Vittal And 2 Others on 28 December, 2023

Author: G. Radha Rani

Bench: G. Radha Rani

                                       1
                                                                     Dr.GRR, J
                                                               macma_3436_2012


         THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.3436 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants - claimants aggrieved by the award

and decree dated 03.02.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.531 of 2005 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Adilabad

seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,15,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal to Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed by them.

2. The claimants are the son and wife of the deceased Gudiwada Chandra

Sekhar Naidu.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the

deceased G.Chandra Sekhar Naidu in a motor vehicle accident. The case of the

claimants was that the deceased was aged 60 years. He was earning Rs.75,000/-

to Rs.1,00,000/- per annum through agriculture and used to contribute the same

towards the petitioners. On 21.05.2004 at about 08:00 PM while the deceased

was going to a temple alone on N.H.No.7 on foot and reached the over bridge of

Dasnapur near Adilabad, in the meantime, an Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-

25-F-5388 driven by its driver in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner

Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012

came in opposite direction and hit the deceased, due to which the deceased fell

down from the bridge into Dasnapur rivulet. He sustained severe injuries,

fracture of chest bone and left hand. Immediately, he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Adilabad and while undergoing treatment succumbed to

the injuries. The Police Adilabad registered a case in Crime No.47 of 2004

under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the Ambassador Car. The

petitioners claimed compensation from respondents 1 to 3 (the driver, owner

and insurer of the car bearing No.AP-25-F-5388).

4. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.3 filed counter. He called for strict proof of the

petition averments and that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of

the car by its driver. He contended that the compensation claimed was

excessive, exorbitant and the petitioners were not entitled for the same.

6. The Tribunal framed the issues and caused enquiry.

7. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner No.1 examined himself as

PW.1 and got examined an eye-witness to the accident as PW.2 and a witness

who stated that he gave his agricultural lands to the deceased on lease as PW.3.

Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. Ex.A1 was the attested

copy of the FIR, Ex.A2 was the attested copy of the inquest panchanama of the

deceased, Ex.A3 was the attested copy of the post-mortem examination report

Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012

of the deceased and Ex.A4 was the attested copy of the charge-sheet. No oral or

documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent No.3 - Insurance

Company.

8. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal considered that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-25-F-5388 and held

respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the

claimants.

9. With regard to the quantum of compensation, though PW.3 stated that he

gave his agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.25-00gts. in Bandala Nagapur

Village on lease to the deceased and that the deceased was earning around

Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per annum, the Tribunal disbelieved the said

evidence and considered his income notionally @ Rs.18,000/- per annum. By

deducting one-third of the amount towards the expenses of the deceased,

considered the net loss of earnings as Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal considered the

age of the deceased as 60 years and by applying multiplier "8", assessed the loss

of earnings as Rs.96,000/-. The Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.7,500/-

towards loss of consortium to the petitioner No.2 and awarded Rs.7,500/-

towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/-

towards transportation charges and medical expenses. In total, the Tribunal

Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012

awarded an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization.

10. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimants preferred this

appeal contending that the Tribunal failed to consider the income of the

agriculturist. Seeking proof for agricultural income was unwarranted. The

Tribunal ought to have assessed agricultural income by a reasonable

presumption. The Tribunal erred in appreciating the evidence of PW.3 in a

proper perspective and disbelieving the same was improper. The amounts

awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of estate and consortium were insufficient.

The Tribunal considering the deceased as a non-earning person, inspite of the

evidence of PW.3 was illegal. The Tribunal failed to apply proper multiplier

and prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Heard Ms.T.Praneetha, learned counsel for the appellants and

Sri.V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 - Insurance

Company.

12. PW.3 in his evidence stated that he owned Ac.25-00gts. of land in

Bandala Nagapur Village and had given the entire land on lease to G.Chandra

Sekhar Naidu. The deceased used to pay lease @ Rs.3,000/- per acre every year

and might be earning Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- net income by doing

agriculture. It was elicited in his cross-examination that no document was filed

Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012

evidencing executing lease of his lands to the deceased. In the absence of

evidence in the form of any receipts or other documents evidencing purchasing

of fertilizers or engagement of tractor or other agricultural equipment to show

that the deceased was cultivating an extent of Ac.25-00gts. of land on lease

basis, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW.3.

13. The learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Harpreet Kaur and Others v. Mohinder Yadav and

Others 1, wherein the income of the deceased who owned agricultural land to an

extent of Ac.12-00gts. and had also taken land on lease of others and was

cultivating total Ac.66-00gts. of land was considered as Rs.1,50,000/- per

annum.

14. In the said case documentary evidence was filed in proof of the same.

But there is no documentary evidence in this case to believe that the deceased

was pattedar or cultivator of any agricultural lands. But, however considering

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Ramachandrappa v. The

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 2 wherein

the appellant was working as a coolie, basing on the ground realities prevailing

at the relevant point of time, the wage of the labourer was considered as

between Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day during the period of accident occurred in

2023 ACJ 1799

2011 ACJ 2426

Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012

the year 2004 and in the present case also, the date of accident was on

21.05.2004, it is considered fit to take the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-

per month.

15. As per the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others 3 , as

future prospects are to be applied even in cases where the deceased was self-

employed, considering the age of the deceased as 60 years as per Exs.A1 to A4,

10 % is added towards future prospects. As such, the income of the deceased

can be considered as Rs.4,500/- + Rs.450/- = Rs.4,950/-. Multiplier "9" is taken

as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.Sarla Verma and

Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another 4. One-third is deducted

towards personal expenses of the deceased and the loss of dependency is

calculated as Rs.4,950/- x 12 x 9 x 2/3 = Rs.3,56,400/-.

16. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General

Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Others 5, the

claimant No.1 is entitled for parental consortium and claimant No.2 is entitled

for spousal consortium. As such, an amount of Rs.40,000/- with enhancement

@ 10 % for every three years as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others (cited

2017 ACJ 2700

(2009) 6 SCC 121

2018 ACJ 2782

Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012

supra) is awarded to each of the claimants. Hence, the claimants are entitled to

an amount of Rs.44,000/- each under this head.

17. The claimants are also entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss

of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, which should be enhanced

@ 10 % for every three years as per the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Pranay Sethi Case (cited supra). As such, an amount of Rs.16,500/-

each is awarded under the heads 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'

respectively.

18. Hence, the compensation entitled by the claimants under various heads is

as follows:

         S. No.   Heads                    Compensation Awarded
         1.       Loss of Dependency       Rs.3,56,400/-
         2.       Loss of Consortium       Rs.88,000/-
         3.       Loss of Estate           Rs.16,500/-
         4.       Funeral Expenses         Rs.16,500/-
         Total:                            Rs.4,77,400/-

19. As the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,15,000/-, it is

considered fit to enhance the amount to Rs.4,77,400/-, which is considered as

just and reasonable.

20. In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from

Rs.1,15,000/- to Rs.4,77,400/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the

enhanced amount. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company is directed to

Dr.GRR, J macma_3436_2012

deposit the above amount with interest within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount deposited

if any earlier. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the

amounts as per the ratio awarded by the Tribunal.

No order as to costs.