Telangana High Court
Laxmi, Hyderabad 4 Others vs Raju Devi, Rajasthan St Anr on 7 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.1801 of 2016
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ M.A.C.M.A. No.1801 OF 2016
% 07-02-2023
# Smt. B. Laxmi and others
....Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
$ Smt. Raju Devi and another
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : K. Jagathpal Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents : I. Maamu Vani
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2014 ACJ 2875
2. 2017(16) SCC 680
3. 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.1801 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
M.A.C.M.A. No. 1801 OF 2016
Between:
Smt. B. Laxmi and others
....Appellants/Petitioners
Vs.
Smt. Raju Devi and another
.... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 07.02.2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.1801 of 2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1801 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioners
against the order and decree dated 08.02.2016 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.564 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum- XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at
Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 09.01.2012, the deceased, late B. Ramesh was
proceeding in vehicle Toyota Quallis bearing No. AP15AS2328 as
a driver as per the directions of his employer. He then reached
near Allapur outskirts of Toopran and the deceased halted the
vehicle to attend nature calls and got down from the front door.
At that time, one lorry bearing No. RJ192G0241 came from
Potharajupallly side which was driven by its driver at high speed
and in a rash and negligent manner, then hit the Quallis vehicle
from behind and the deceased died on spot. The Government
hospital, Gajwel conducted postmortem. The deceased B.
Ramesh died leaving behind his legal heirs who are the
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.1801 of 2016
petitioners herein. On the said incident, the police Toopran
registered a case vide Cr.No.4 of 2012 and later after due
investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of
the above said lorry. Hence the appellants filed a claim petition
before the Court below, claiming Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty-Five Lakhs Only).
3. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
4. The Court below after hearing both sides, framed
issues and the 1st appellant got herself examined as PW-1 and
marked Exhibits A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is a Certified Copy of FIR in Cr.
No. 4 of 2012; Ex.A2 is the Charge sheet; Ex.A3 is the Inquest;
Ex.A4 is the PMA report; Ex.A5 is the MVI report; Ex.A6 is the
Spot Panchnama and Ex.A7 is the Driving license of the
deceased. The eye-witness was examined as PW-2.
5. The Court below after considering all issues, allowed
the petition in part by granting Rs.12,52,000/- (Rupees Twelve
Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Only) with costs in all with an interest
@ 9 % per annum from the date of filing petition till the date of
realization with proportionate costs and the respondents are
jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. On such
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.1801 of 2016
deposit, the 1st petitioner was entitled to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees
Eight Lakhs Only) and was permitted to withdraw Rs.4,00,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Only) in costs and the remaining amount of
her share shall be kept in FDR for 4 years. The 4th and 5th
petitioners were entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Only) each. The 4th petitioner was permitted to withdraw
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and the remaining
amount shall be kept in FDR for 1 year. The 5th petitioner was
permitted to withdraw the entire share amount. The remaining
amount along with the entire interest was entitled to the 2nd and
3rd petitioners and their share amount shall be kept in FDR till
they attain the age of majority. The petitioner was further
directed to open a bank account in their village in a nationalized
bank in accordance to Rule 471 of the Motor Vehicle Rules.
Against the above order, the present appeal is filed questioning
the quantum.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. Perused
the record.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that
the tribunal granted less compensation without appreciating oral
6 RRN,J
MACMA No.1801 of 2016
and documentary evidence which was filed in support of the
petitioners' case and further failed to consider the income of the
deceased as per the judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 2875 which
was in support of his claim. The court below erred in considering
the salary of the deceased at Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety
Thousand Only) per annum only, in absence of evidence. Under
the above grounds, the petitioners are seeking the enhancement
of compensation.
8. Against the contentions of the appellants, learned
counsel for the respondent argued that no salary certificate was
produced in the court below and also, if he is a driver of the
vehicle Quallis, he ought to have claimed compensation under
Workman Compensation Act and further stated that the court
below was justified in awarding the amount in question and
prayed to dismiss the appeal.
9. Having considered the rival contentions of both
parties, this Court is of the considered view, the Court below has
wrongly fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.90,000/-(Rupees
Ninety Thousand Only) per annum including future prospects. In
support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kala
7 RRN,J
MACMA No.1801 of 2016
Devi vs. Bhagwan Das Chauhan1 the monthly income of a
driver was considered as Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand
Only) which would mean that the annual income is
Rs.1,08,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand Only). The
relevant portion of the decision stated supra is as follows:
"9. ... Therefore, the courts below have failed to
take judicial notice of the same and the fact that the
post of a driver is a skilled job. Thus, considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, we take the
gross monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/-
p.m i.e Rs.1,08,000/- p.a."
As such, the income of the deceased can be fixed at
Rs.1,08,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand Only) p.a.
10. As per Pranay Sethi2, the future prospects to be
added is to be considered as 40%, as the deceased was below 40
years of age i.e Rs.1,08,000/- + 40% (Rs.43,200/-) which totals
to Rs.1,51,200. The claimants are 5 in number as such, 1/4th of
the above amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses
which is Rs.1,51,200/- - 1/4th (Rs.37,800/-) = Rs.1,13,400/-.
Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier for
calculation of loss of dependency as per Pranay Sethi (supra) is
2014 ACJ 2875.
2017 (16) SCC 680.
8 RRN,J
MACMA No.1801 of 2016
to be taken as 17. Hence, Rs.1,13,400 x 17 = 19,27,800/-. The
Court below granted consortium to the 1st appellant an amount
of Rs.50,000/- however, the same is reduced to Rs.40,000/- as
per Pranay Sethi (supra). Loss of Estate was awarded at
Rs.25,000/- is hereby reduced to 15,000/- and funeral expenses
were awarded Rs.30,000/- is hereby reduced to Rs.15,000/-
which totals to Rs.70,000/-. As three years have elapsed since
the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), an interest of 10% is to be
added to the above amount which would amount to Rs.77,000/-.
Further, as per the decision rendered in Magma General
Insurance Co.Ltd Vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram3 the parental
consortium and loss of loyal consortium and parental
consortium for minor children, the appellants 2 to 5 are awarded
Rs. 40,000/- each which totals to Rs. 1,60,000/-. For simpler
understanding, a table is depicted as hereunder:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1. Income
Rs.9,000/- per month
Rs.9,000/- @ 40% of the original
2 Future Prospects income
Rs.1,08,000/-
3. Annual income
(Rs.9,000x12=Rs.1,08,000/-)
2018 Law Suit (SC) 904
9 RRN,J
MACMA No.1801 of 2016
Rs.1,13,400/-
4. Deductions towards personal
expenses (Rs.1,51,200/- x 1/4th =
Rs.1,13,400/-) as the dependants are
four in number.
Rs.19,27,800/-
5. Loss of dependency
(Rs.1,13,400/- x 17)
7. Loss of Spousal consortium -
2017 (16) SCC 680. Rs.44,000/-
(Rs.44,000/- + 10% thereof)
8. Loss of parental and minor
children consortium - Magma Rs.1,60,000/-
General Insurance Co.Ltd (Rs.40,000/-) Each to the appellants
Vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru No.2 to 5.
Ram - 2018 Law Suit (SC)
Rs.16,500/-
9. Funeral expenses
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% thereof)
Rs.16,500/-
10. Loss of Estate
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% thereof )
Total Rs.21,64,800/-
11. Accordingly the compensation amount awarded is
enhanced from Rs.12,52,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Fifty Two
Thousand Only) to Rs.21,64,800/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh
Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only). However, the Court
below has granted interest at the rate of 9% p.a . Now the
remaining amount of Rs. Rs.9,12,800/- shall carry interest at the
rate of 7.5% p.a.
10 RRN,J
MACMA No.1801 of 2016
12. In total, the appellants are awarded compensation of
Rs. 21,64,800/-. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part,
enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,52,000/- (Rupees
Twelve Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Only) to Rs.21,64,800/-
(Rupees Twenty One Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Eight Hundred
Only) with an interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till the
date of realization. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
7th day of February, 2023
BDR
