Telangana High Court
Pilly Narasamma 2 Others vs Mr G Srinivas Another on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.3441 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellants/claimants
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the
order and decree, dated 29.03.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.406
of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short
"the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of the
death of Pilly Manaiah (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") in
the accident. On 14.10.2011 in the evening, the deceased and
his co-workers were taking rest after attending their labour
work in M/s. Sneha Feeds (P) Ltd., Medchal Mandal,
Rangareddy District and on 15.10.2011 at about 5.30 hours,
2 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014
the driver of Eicher bearing No.AP28-TA-8164 drove the said
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner over the deceased and
others and consequently the deceased received serious injuries
and multiple fractures on vital parts of the body. Immediately,
the deceased was shifted to Medicity Hosptial for treatment and
thereafter referred to Gandhi Hospital, where the duty doctor
declared that the deceased was brought dead.
4. The respondents filed their counters affidavits denying
all the allegations raised by the petitioners and stated that the
driver of the vehicle is an experienced driver with a valid
license and driving the vehicle by taking all precautions and
safety measures. The accident occurred only due to negligence
on the part of the deceased. The petitioners have also not filed
any proof to show the age, earnings and legal heirs of the
deceased. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
5. To prove their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3
and marked Ex.A1 to A6. No oral evidence was adduced on
behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B1/copy of the policy is filed.
3 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal
held that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable
to pay the compensation of Rs.6,65,000/- with interest @ 7.5%
p.a. to the petitioners. Challenging the quantum of
compensation, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
Tribunal erred in granting meagre compensation by not
considering the salary of the deceased @ Rs.9,000/- per month
despite PW.3 i.e. employer of the deceased was examined who
got marked Ex.A6/salary certificate and specifically deposed
that the deceased was paid the above said amount. It is the
further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects of the
deceased and also prayed for granting compensation under
conventional heads as per the well settled law. Accordingly,
prayed to allow the appeal.
4 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal
was justified in arriving at the compensation amount by
considering Rs.5,000/- per month towards the salary of the
deceased. He further contended that the 3rd petitioner was a
major at the time of filing of the O.P., as such, he cannot be
considered to be the dependent of the deceased. Accordingly,
prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having considered the rival submissions of both parties,
this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in not
considering Ex.A6/salary certificate issued by PW.3 and his
evidence. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad V. K. Swaroopa Rani1
wherein this Court even in the absence of oral evidence of the
employer, where the salary certificate was marked, the Court
considered the same and rightly awarded the compensation.
In this case, the petitioners examined the employer of the
2013(1) ALD 369
5 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014
deceased and also filed the salary certificate/Ex.A6 which can
be relied upon without hesitation. As such, this Court is
inclined to re-fix the salary of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per
month. This Court is further inclined to award future
prospects on the income of the deceased and compensation
under other heads. The petitioners were granted Rs.6,65,000/-
and the same is interfered with in the following manner:
Head Amount arrived at by Amount arrived at by
the Tribunal this Court
Salary of deceased Rs.5,000/- p.m Rs.9,000/- p.m
Annual income Rs.,60,000/- (Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.9,000
x 12) x 12)
Future prospects Nil Rs.43,200/- (40% to be
taken as the deceased
was under the 40 years,
as per Pranay Sethi)
Annual Income + Future Rs.60,000/- + Nil Rs.1,51,200/-
prospects
½ Deduction as the deceased Rs.30,000/- Rs.75,600/-
was a bachelor
Age Multiplier 18 "18" (As per Sarla Verma)
Loss of dependency Rs.5,40,000/- (30,000/- Rs.13,60,800/-
x 18) excluding future (Rs.75,600/- x 18)
prospects. including future
prospects
Loss of love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/- Nil
care
Loss of Estate Nil Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% as
per Pranay Sethi)
Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10% as
per Pranay Sethi)
Loss of Filial Consortium Nil Rs.80,000/-
(As per Magma Insurance (Rs.40,000/- to
Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ petitioners No.2 and 3)
Chuhru Ram)
Total Rs.6,65,500/- Rs.14,73,800/-
6 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014
11. In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.14,73,800/-
towards compensation.
12. Though the claimed amount is Rs.9,00,000/-, invoking the
principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh2, this Court
is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 6,65,000/-
to Rs.14,73,800/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh, Seventy Three
Thousand and Eight Hundred Only) with interest at 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of
realization. The respondents shall deposit the said
compensation amount together with interest and costs within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment by giving due credit to the amount already deposited
if any. The compensation amount shall be apportioned by the
petitioners in the ratio and manner as directed by the Tribunal.
However, the petitioners are directed to pay the deficit Court
fee on the enhanced compensation within a period of two
MANU/SC/0480/2013
7 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3441 of 2014
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
1st day of March, 2023
BDR/PNS
