The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Penchala Rajeshwar Rao, Rr Dist 4 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 208 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 208 Tel
Judgement Date : 11 January, 2023

Telangana High Court

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Penchala Rajeshwar Rao, Rr Dist 4 ... on 11 January, 2023

Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha, M.G.Priyadarsini

 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                     AND

     THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.521 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:- (Per Dr.CSL,J)

1.   Challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is the

order that is rendered by the Court of Principal District

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in O.P.No.537 of 2009, dated

03.04.2013.


2.   Heard Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the

appellant as well as Sri D.Rama Krishna, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents.

3. The 1st respondent being the Father, the 2nd

respondent being the Mother, the 3rd respondent being the

Brother and the 4th respondent being the Sister of the

deceased-Jagadeeshwar (hereinafter be referred as the

deceased for brevity) who died in a road accident, claimed

compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- in total. The Court,

through the impugned order, awarded compensation of

Rs.44,00,000/- together with proportionate costs and

interest. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant, who

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J MACMA.No.521 of 2014

is the insurer of the offending vehicle in question, is before

this Court.

4. Making his submission, learned counsel for the

appellant contended that the Insurance Company is only

questioning the quantum of compensation awarded.

Learned counsel states that the 3rd respondent, who is the

major brother and the 4th respondent, who is the major

sister of the deceased, are not entitled for compensation.

Learned counsel submits that as the Father of those two

i.e. Respondent No.1 is alive, they would become the

dependants of Respondent No.1, but in no case the

dependants of the deceased and thus, awarding

compensation holding them to be the dependants of the

deceased is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also submits

that the Tribunal took the age of the Mother into

consideration for applying the appropriate multiplier. But,

as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla

Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another1,

the age of the deceased ought to have been taken into

consideration.

2009 ACJ 1298

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J MACMA.No.521 of 2014

5. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 seeks to

pass appropriate orders basing on the merits of the case.

6. The fact that the gross annual salary of the deceased

was Rs.5,06,250/- is borne by record through the evidence

of PW3 and Ex.C1. Further, it is not in dispute that the

deceased was aged about 27 years by the date of accident.

Considering the above facts and basing on the established

principles of law regarding the future prospects to be

applied and the multiplier to be adopted, necessary

calculation has to be made to arrive at a certain figure

which amounts to just compensation. Admittedly, the

deceased was working as SAS Programmer by the date of

accident. Having considered the said fact, 50% of the

income of the deceased has to be added towards future

prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others2. Likewise, as the deceased is a Bachelor, 50% of

the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards

personal and living expenses which the deceased would

have incurred for himself had he been alive as per the

2017 ACJ 2700

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J MACMA.No.521 of 2014

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Varma's

(referred supra) case. Likewise, the appropriate multiplier

to be applied considering the age of the deceased as 27

years by the date of accident is '17'. Hence, the following

derivation is made:-

Annual gross salary Rs.5,06,250/- Less 10% Income Tax Rs.5,06,250-10%(50,625/-) = Rs.4,55,625

Addition of 50% towards Rs.4,55,625+50% Future prospects = Rs.6,83,437.5

Deduction of 50% =Rs.6,83,437.5-50%(3,41,718.75) towards personal and =Rs.3,41,718.75 living expenses Appropriate multiplier to Rs.3,41,718.75 x '17' be applied =Rs.58,09,218.75

Adding of 15,000/- Rs.58,09,218.75+15,000+15,000 towards Funeral +40,000 expenses; =Rs.58,79,218.75 Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium

7. The compensation which the claimants are entitled to

is Rs.58,79,218.75. However, the Tribunal had awarded

only Rs.44,00,000/- towards compensation. Therefore, the

said amount can neither be termed exorbitant nor unjust.

Applying the analogy put forth by the learned counsel for

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J MACMA.No.521 of 2014

the appellant, the claimants are entitled for more than the

awarded amount. Therefore, we are of the considered view

that the appeal which only questions the quantum

awarded is unsustainable.

8. Resultantly, the Appeal is dismissed. Consequently,

the Award of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy