Telangana High Court
Smt.V.Padmavathi vs Mr.Asuram Another on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.1854 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
MACMA No.1854 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant is
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt.18.11.2006 in O.P No. 924 of
2003 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts,
Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court below').
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Udugu Jagadamba, the deceased, aged about 55 years on
28.9.2000 at about 10 a.m., while walking on NH-7 at
Chandrayangutta Bus Stop, was dashed by an Auto-rickshaw bearing
No.AP-13-B-2900 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner and as a result, the deceased received grievous injuries and
was shifted to Osmania Hospital for treatment, where she succumbed
to the injuries on 1.10.2000. The sole appellant who is the only legal
heir of the deceased filed a claim petition against the respondents
claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.
3. To prove her case, the appellant got herself examined as
PW-1 and another as PW-2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. The 1st
respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter
and got examined RWs-1 and 2 and got marked Ex.B1.
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.1854 of 2014
4. After hearing both sides and basing on the available
evidence on record, the Court below awarded Rs.55,000/- as
compensation to the appellant. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the present appeal is filed.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
awarded amount was meagre and the Court below ought to have
awarded more amount as claimed and contended that the age of the
deceased ought to have been considered as 55 years in order to take
the appropriate multiplier as '7'. He further contended that the
appellant was not awarded compensation under various other heads
and prayed to grant compensation under the law as established.
Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents
argued that the Court below was justified in passing the impugned
order in view of the admission made by the appellant that the
deceased was not working at the time or prior to her death.
Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. A perusal of the record would reveal that the deceased died
in the year of 2000. The claim petition was filed in the year 2003, the
impugned award was passed in the year 2006. Now we are in the year
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.1854 of 2014
2023. The Court below considered the income of the deceased as
Rs.15,000/- p.a which is Rs.1,250/- per month at that point of time
based on the Second Schedule of the Act which was later repealed.
There have been several rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to
what the notional income of a deceased can be taken in absence of
any income or proof of income. However, this Court would deem it just
and proper to consider the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m
(Rs.36,000/- p.a) in view of the present-day scenario. However, the
Court below has applied the multiplier '5' as per the Second Schedule
of the Act in that point of time, but the same is to be substituted with
'9' as per the decision of the Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport1. The
appellant is further entitled to the benefit of future prospects on the
above assessed income of the deceased @ 10% besides compensation
under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay
Sethi2.
9. As such, the appellant is entitled to compensation as under:
Head Amount Awarded by Amount Awarded by this
the Court below Court
Loss of Rs.50,000/- Rs.2,37,600/-
dependency (Rs.36,000/-+10% - x2/3 x 9)
Loss of filial
consortium
(As per Magma Nil Rs.40,000/-
General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs
Nanu Ram alias
(2009) 6 SCC 121.
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.1854 of 2014
Chuchru Ram - 2018
Law Suit (SC) 904)
Loss of Estate Rs.16,500
((2017) 16 SCC 680)
Nil (Rs.15,000/- + 10%)
Funeral expenses Rs.16,500
((2017) 16 SCC 680)
Rs 2,500/- (Rs.15,000/- + 10%)
Travel expenses Rs.2,500/- Rs.2,000/-
Total Rs.55,000/- Rs. 3,12,600/-
10. There is no irregularity in awarding the enhanced
compensation amount as against the claimed amount as it is well-
settled law that the awarded amount can be enhanced more than that
of the claim as per the principle of 'Just Compensation'. However, the
appellant is bound to deposit the deficit court fee upon the enhanced
amount.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.55,000/- to Rs.3,12,600/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Six Hundred Only) with interest @
7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 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 a certified copy
of this judgment. The appellant/claimant is directed to pay the
deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation amount within
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.1854 of 2014
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
14th day of February, 2023
BDR
