Telangana High Court
Smt.Indoorkar Mohan Kumari 2 Ors vs Md.Shariff Anr on 7 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN, J
MACMA NO.2104 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
MACMA No. 2104 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants and
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
2. Aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.16.01.2006 in
O.P No.956 of 2001 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy
District (for short "the Tribunal"), the claimants preferred the
present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded
an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- with proportionate costs and
interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of realization as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/- laid by the
appellants/claimants.
4. On the analysis of the entire evidence, the Tribunal
gave a specific finding that the accident had occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle
belonging to the first respondent. Admittedly, the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company did not file any appeal
2 RRN, J
MACMA NO.2104 of 2014
challenging the said finding and therefore, the said finding
attained finality.
5. The only question that falls for consideration before
this Court is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
6. It is the specific contention of the appellants that
the Tribunal failed to follow the well established multiplier
system, and contended that at the time of death of the
deceased, he was 20 years and the same is undisputed. In
view of the decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal Jain V.
Vipin Kumar Sharma1 when the deceased was a bachelor,
the age of the deceased has to be considered while determining
the multiplier and not the age of the mother. As such, the
appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the Apex Court in
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2 is 18.
7. With regard to monthly earning capacity, it is the
contention of the appellants that the deceased was working as
a Computer Operator at the time of the accident and he used
to earn an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month. No documentary
evidence was filed in proof of the same. To overcome this
2015(6) SCC 347
(2009) 6 SCC 121
3 RRN, J
MACMA NO.2104 of 2014
hindrance, learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramchandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd.3 Wherein it was held that in the absence
of any documentary evidence to substantiate the claim
regarding monthly income, the appellant therein was a coolie
and his monthly income was considered @ Rs.4,500/- and the
same principle may be applied in the case on hand.
Considering the same, the monthly earning capacity of the
deceased can be considered as Rs.4,000/- as claimed by the
appellants. Thus, the annual income of the deceased can be
taken as Rs.4,000/- x 12 = Rs.48,000/-.
8. As per Pranay Sethi4, the future prospects to be
added is to be considered as 40%, as the deceased was below
40 years of age i.e Rs.48,000/- + 40% (Rs.19,200/-) =
Rs.67,200/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor ½ of the above
amount is to be deducted towards personal expenses which
comes to Rs.33,600/-(Rs.67,200 - Rs.33,600/-). Considering
the age of the deceased, the multiplier for calculation of loss of
2011(6) ALD 75 (SC)
2017 (16) SCC 680.
4 RRN, J
MACMA NO.2104 of 2014
dependency as per Pranay Sethi (supra) is to be taken as 18.
Hence, Rs.33,600/- x 18 = 6,04,800/-. Loss of Estate was
awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.5,000/-, which is hereby
enhanced to 15,000/- and funeral expenses was awarded
Rs.5,000/-, which is hereby enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, by
adding 10% as per Pranay Sethi (supra) i.e. Rs.30,000/- +
3,000/- = Rs.33,000/-. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are
entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium as per
Magma General Insurance Company Limited V. Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram5 which comes to Rs.80,000/-.
9. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to
Rs.6,04,800/- (Loss of dependency) + Rs.33,000/- (under
conventional heads) + Rs.80,000/- (Filial consortium). In all,
Rs.7,17,800/- (Rupees Seven Lakh, seventeen thousand and
eight hundred only).
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and accordingly,
the order and decree dt.16.01.2006 in O.P No.956 of 2001
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
Cum-I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District is
(2018) 18 SCC 130
5 RRN, J
MACMA NO.2104 of 2014
modified enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,95,000/- to
Rs.7,17,800/- (Rupees Seven Lakh, seventeen thousand and
eight hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% on the
enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of
realization. Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation amount. The compensation amount shall be
apportioned among the claimants in the same proportion in
which original compensation amounts were directed to be
apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay
the deficit Court fee within one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this Judgment. Similarly, the respondents are
directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and
costs after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier
within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of
this judgment. There shall be 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.
6 RRN, J
MACMA NO.2104 of 2014
BDR
