K.Ananthaiah 3 Ors vs C.Purandhar Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 496 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                           M.A.C.M.A. No.4137 of 2008

O R D E R:

The appellants/claimants have filed the present appeal aggrieved

by the order and decree dated 15.11.2006 passed in MVOP.No.2729 of

2003 by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum II Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Sri Anantha Chary Kurella, learned counsel for the

appellants/claimants, submit that the daughter of the appellants

1 & 2 and sister of appellants 3 & 4 died in a road accident that

took place on 04.10.2002. At the time of the accident, the age of

the deceased was six years. He submits that a claim petition was

filed by the appellants/claimants claiming an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/-, but the Court below has granted an amount of

Rs.1,52,000/-. He submits that the court below has deducted

1/3rd amount and further has taken the notional income at

Rs.15,000/- and granted only an amount of Rs.1,52,000/-.

Learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants has relied on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Meena Devi v. Mumu

Chand Mahto @ Nemchand Mahto & others1. He submits that in

the said case, where the apex court while relying on the judgment

1 2022 Live Law (SC)841

in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others2 has fixed the

notional income at Rs.30,000/- and applied the multiplier as 15

and assessed loss of dependency at Rs.4,50,000/- and under the

conventional heads an amount of Rs.50,000/- is granted and the

total amount was arrived at Rs.5,00,000/-. He submits that the

said ratio laid down in the above case applies to the present case

of the appellants.

3. Though notice is served on the respondent-Insurance

Company, there is no representation on its behalf. Hence, this

Court has appointed Smt. Satya Manjula to represent the

respondent-Insurance Company.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company

does not dispute the proposition law laid down in the judgment of

the Hon'ble apex court in Meena Devi's case (supra).

5. In view of the same, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation under the following heads:-

1)     30,000 notional income
       X multiplier15                =                        Rs.4,50,000/-

2)     Conventional heads                =                    Rs. 50,000/-
                                                             ______________
       Total                             =                    Rs.5,00,000/-
                                                             ______________

2 (2014)1SCC244

6. The appellants/claimants shall pay the Court fees on the

enhanced amount. The appellant is entitled for an interest of

7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of

petition till the date of realization. The Respondent-Insurance

company shall deposit the amount within eight (08) weeks from

today. On such Deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw

the amount. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 31st January, 2023 myk