Telangana High Court

Md Yousuf, Hyderabad And Others vs N Narender, Secunderabad And ... on 8 February, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

                                    1                                   RRN,J
                                                         MACMA No.2719 of 2015


 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2719 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 29.07.2015,

passed in M.V.O.P.No.842 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Vehicles

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast

Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

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

hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

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

petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- together with costs and

interest @ 18% p.a from the date of petition till realization, for the

death of one Smt. Mahamooda Begum (hereinafter referred to as

"the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated

that on 08.01.2012 the deceased and her relatives after attending

the engagement ceremony in Jagithyala, were returning to

Hyderabad in a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-28TV- 6018, on the way

at about 16.30 hours when they reached near Saibaba Temple,

Pudur Village of Kodimial Mandal, Karimnagar District, the driver of 2 RRN,J MACMA No.2719 of 2015

the said Tata Sumo drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed a roadside tree. Consequently, the deceased

and her relatives and the driver have sustained serious injuries.

The deceased had sustained injuries on the vital parts of the body

and died on the spot. After the occurrence of the accident, the

deceased was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Karimnagar, for

conducting autopsy over the dead body. Later the Police Kodimial

has registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2012 under Sections 337

and 304-A of IPC against the driver of the Tata Sumo bearing

No.AP28-TV-6018. The respondent No.1 is the owner and

respondent No.2 is the insurer of the vehicle. According to the

petitioners, the deceased was 38 years and she was hale and

healthy and earning a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month. Therefore,

they laid the claim against the respondents seeking compensation

of Rs.9.00 lakhs.

4. The respondent No.2 filed a counter before the Tribunal

denying the allegations made in the claim petition.

5. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined

and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of respondent No.2 no

oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part awarding 3 RRN,J MACMA No.2719 of 2015

a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5%

per annum, to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally.

According to the petitioners, the Tribunal erroneously granted a

very meager amount and for enhancement of the same, the

petitioners filed the present appeal.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued

that the Tribunal erred in fixing the salary of the deceased to

Rs.3,000/- p.m and ought to have considered her income as

Rs.7,500/- p.m despite she being a housewife, was engaged in the

business of tailoring. He further contended that the Tribunal did

not consider the aspect of future prospects and accordingly, prayed

to allow the appeal by awarding enhanced compensation.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/insurance company contended that there is absolutely

no evidence with regard to the income of the deceased, let alone the

assertion of earning of Rs.7,500/- p.m. In such case, the Tribunal

was justified in fixing the salary of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m

and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place, has become final since the same was 4 RRN,J MACMA No.2719 of 2015

not challenged by the respondent. Insofar as the quantum of

compensation is concerned, it is mentioned in the inquest report

that the age of the deceased was 38 years and the multiplier

applicable for the age group of 36 to 45 is 15 and the income of the

deceased is taken as Rs.36,000/- per annum. We shall analyze

whether the Tribunal was right in doing so.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice

of this Court the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal

Transport Service1 wherein it was held as under:

"Having regard to nature of job that deceased was performing as skilled polisher, it would be just and proper to take his monthly income as Rs.5,000/- and adding 50% towards future prospects and deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses, monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.6,000/-."

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar Agarwal

Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.2; Kirti vs. Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd.3 and Rajendra Singh vs. National Insurance

Company Ltd.4 wherein the question involved was related to the

fixation of income of housewife in the cases of motor accidents for

2014 (1) ALD 116 (SC) 2 2010 (9) SCC 218 3 (2021) 2 SCC 166.

4 (2020) 7 SCC 256.

                                                5                               RRN,J
                                                                MACMA No.2719 of 2015

the purpose of compensation and the Hon'ble Court found it apt to

fix the same at Rs.5,000/-p.m. The Tribunal erred in fixing the

income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- p.m. However, the arguments

of the petitioners to consider the income of the deceased @

Rs.7,500/- p.m. in the absence of any evidence cannot be

considered. As such, this Court is inclined to interfere with regard

to just fixation of earnings of the deceased.

13. In view of the above discussions, this Court is inclined

to fix the monthly income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/- per month

and future prospects of 40% as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs.

Pranay Sethi and others5 is to be considered. Therefore, the

monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.8,400/- (6,000 +

40%). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal

expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation6 as the claimants are four in number

(Rs.8400 - Rs.2,100 i.e. ¼ ) = Rs.6,300/- per month. Thus, the

annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300 x 12 =

Rs.75,600/-. As the age of the deceased was 36 years, the

appropriate multiplier to be taken is 15, hence, Rs.75,600/- x 15 =

Rs.11,34,000/- is the loss of dependency.


5   2017 ACJ 2700

    2009 ACJ 1208(SC)
                                               6                               RRN,J
                                                               MACMA No.2719 of 2015

14. The petitioners are further entitled to the statutory

benefits and conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi (supra),

which are loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to the 1st petitioner;

Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- and Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-.

Thus, this comes to a total of Rs.70,000/- to which 10% interest is

to be added as per Pranay Sethi (supra), which comes to

Rs.77,000/-The petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each

towards loss of parental consortium as per Magma General

Insurance Co.Ltd Vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram7 which totals

to Rs.1,20,000/-. In all, the petitioners are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.13,31,000/- as against the awarded amount.

15. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya vs. Divisional

Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another8,

the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh

held as under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 or the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."





    2018 Law Suit (SC) 904

    (2011)10SCC 756
                                          7                                  RRN,J
                                                             MACMA No.2719 of 2015

16. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to

above, the appellants/claimants are entitled to get more amount

than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being

a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the

appellants/claimants is a paramount consideration the Court

should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the

appellants/claimants to a just and reasonable extent.

17. Accordingly the compensation amount awarded is

enhanced from Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh and ten thousand

Only) to Rs.13,31,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh and thirty one

thousand only).

18. In all, the appellants/claimants are awarded

compensation of Rs.13,31,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh and thirty

one thousand only). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, enhancing

the compensation from Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh and ten

thousand only) to Rs.13,31,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh and thirty

one thousand only) with interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till

the date of realization. The said amount shall be apportioned in the

ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. The respondents shall deposit the