Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Akula Venkatamma Died 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 223 Tel

     THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                          AND
      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.767 of 2014
JUDGMENT:-

1.     Questioning the validity of the Award passed by the

Motor     Accidents        Claims   Tribunal,    Hyderabad,     in

M.V.O.P.No.2661       of    2011,   dated   04.09.2013,   a   Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company,

who was the 2nd respondent in the O.P. in question.

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

appellant as well as Smt.Savithri, learned counsel appearing

for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Though number of grounds were urged by the Insurance

Company, i.e. the appellant, while making his submission,

learned counsel for the appellant stated that the main attack

is on the quantum awarded. Learned counsel, during the

course of his submission, contended that ample evidence is

on record to show that one of the dependants would be

getting employment on compassionate grounds. But the said

fact was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal.

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J MACMA.No.767 of 2014

Learned counsel also stated that the Tribunal went wrong in

calculating compensation basing on the entire annual income

of the deceased. Learned counsel stated that the Tribunal

ought to have deducted the Income Tax from the annual gross

salary of the deceased, but, it did not do so and thereby

arrived at a wrong figure. Learned counsel, by submitting

thus, sought this Court to reduce the amount awarded

towards compensation.

4. In reply to the grounds urged and arguments advanced

by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that even

if Income Tax, as urged by the appellant, is deducted and

calculation is again made basing on the settled principles of

law, the claimants would be getting more than the sum

awarded by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further contended

that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount either towards

loss of estate or towards loss of consortium to any of the

claimants which is against law. Learned counsel finally

sought this Court to recalculate the sum to be awarded and to

award just compensation.

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J MACMA.No.767 of 2014

5. The admitted facts and figures that are brought on

record through the evidence produced are as under:-

(i) The deceased-Akula Rajaiah (hereinafter be referred

as the deceased for brevity) was born on 25.06.1965.

(ii) The deceased died on 13.08.2011.

(iii) The deceased, therefore, is aged about 46 years by

the date of accident which ultimately resulted in his

death.

(iv) The gross salary of the deceased was Rs.33,003.16.

6. Thus, in the light of the above admitted factors,

applying the established principles of law, just compensation

has to be calculated.

7. The wife of the deceased, who was the first claimant,

died subsequent to the death of the deceased i.e. on

10.01.2012. The second claimant is the son, the third

claimant is the daughter and the fourth claimant is the

mother of the deceased.

8. As the gross monthly income of the deceased is

Rs.33,003.16, the annual income comes to Rs.3,96,037.92/-

(rounded to Rs.3,96,038/-). As urged by the learned counsel

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J MACMA.No.767 of 2014

for the appellant, out of the said income, the Income Tax

payable by the deceased has to be deducted. The Income Tax

upto Rs.1,60,000/- is Nil. The Income Tax payable from

Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- is 10%. Therefore, the

taxable income is Rs.2,36,038 (Rs.3,96,038-Rs.1,60,000) and

the Tax payable is Rs.2,36,038 x 10% =Rs.23,604/-. The

annual income after deducting Income Tax is Rs.3,96,038-

Rs.23,604 = Rs.3,72,434/-. As the deceased died at the age

of 46 years and as he had permanent job, 30% of the annual

income 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 OTHERS1. Then

the annual income of the deceased together with future

prospects comes to Rs.3,72,434+30% = Rs.4,84,164.2/-

(rounded to Rs.4,84,164/-). The dependants were four in

number. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Sarla Verma & Ors vs. Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr.2

, ¼ 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. Thus, the annual

contribution of the deceased towards his dependants comes

(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680

(2009) 6 SCC 121

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J MACMA.No.767 of 2014

to Rs.4,84,164 - Rs.1,21,041 = Rs.3,63,123/-. The

appropriate multiplier to be applied as per the decision that is

referred supra is '13'. Thus, the loss of dependency comes to

Rs.47,20,599/- (Rs.3,63,123 x 13). Together with the said

amount, the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards

funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate,

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, Rs.40,000/-

towards loss of parental consortium, Rs.40,000/- towards

loss of filial consortium. Thus, in ,all, the dependants are

entitled to Rs.48,70,599/- (Rs.47,20,599 + Rs.15,000 +

Rs.15,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.40,000). Thus, as

rightly projected by the learned counsel for the

respondents/claimants, even if the Income Tax payable by the

deceased is deducted, having regard to the fact that the

Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of estate

and loss of consortium, the claimants would be well entitled

to the amount awarded. Therefore, we are of the view that the

amount awarded as compensation cannot be reduced in the

light of the grounds urged and projected before this Court.

Further, chances of one of the claimants getting employment

on compassionate grounds cannot be taken as a ground to

reject the claim for compensation.

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J MACMA.No.767 of 2014

9. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed confirming the

Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad, in

M.V.O.P.No.2661 of 2011, dated 04.09.2013.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

Dt. 18.01.2023 ysk

Dr.CSL,J & MGP,J MACMA.No.767 of 2014

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.767 of 2014

Dt. 18.01.2023 ysk