Telangana High Court
O Kanthavva, Nizamabad Dist ... vs Chuttan, Alwar Dist Another on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.1389 of 2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1389 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated
03.02.2016, passed in M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2013 on the file of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge)
(FTC), Nizamabad (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
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of the death of
Oddepally Balraj (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in a
motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 26.03.2013 while the
deceased along with his friend Bakka Mahesh was returning
from Banswada on their motorcycle and when it reached at
Banswada cross-road Pitlam Village, a lorry bearing No.HR-74-
1954 came in opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, due to
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.1389 of 2016
which, Mahesh died on the spot and deceased sustained
grievous injuries and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad, where he succumbed to injuries on 30.03.2013.
4. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte and respondent
No.2 filed counter - denying the allegations in the petition.
5. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were
examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of
respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to
B3.
6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part
awarding a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- towards compensation with
interest at 7.5% per annum, to be paid by the respondents
jointly and severally. According to the petitioners, the Tribunal
erroneously granted meagre amount and for enhancement of the
same, the petitioners filed the present appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that prior to the accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and
was working as a labourer, earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but
the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.1389 of 2016
per month, which is to be increased in a reasonable manner. He
further contended that the multiplier "17" is to be substituted
with multiplier "18". He also prayed to grant compensation
under various conventional heads as per law.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 would contend that the Tribunal was justified in passing
the impugned order and no interference is required.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the record.
10. A perusal of the record would reveal that the deceased
was aged about 25 years and was a labourer, but the Tribunal
fixed his income at Rs.4,000/- per month with the reason that
the Tribunal cannot expect any record regarding his avocation
and also income. However, this court is inclined to fix the
income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month as per the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramcandrappa V.
Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company
Ltd.,1 Further, the Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier
"18" for the purpose of determining the loss of dependency as per
( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.1389 of 2016
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2. The petitioners
are further entitled to compensation under conventional heads
as per National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and
others3, and filial consortium as per Magma General Insurance
Co.Ltd Vs.Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram4.
11. This Court would now deal with the quantum of the
awarded compensation. The petitioners were granted
Rs.6,50,000/- and the same is interfered with in the following
manner:
Head Amount arrived at by Amount arrived at
the Tribunal by this Court
Income of deceased Rs.4,000/- p.m Rs.4,500/- p.m
Annual income after Rs.24,000/- Rs.27,000/-
deducting 50% as (Rs.4,000 x 12 - 50%) (Rs.4,500 x 12 - 50%)
deceased was a bachelor
Future prospects Rs.2,000/- Rs.1,800/- (40% to
(at 50% of monthly be taken as per
income) Pranay Sethi)
Age Multiplier "17" "18" (As per Sarla
Verma)
Loss of dependency Rs.5,40,000/- Rs.6,80,400/-
(Wrongly calculated (Rs.3,150 x 12 x 18)
instead of
Rs.6,12,000/-
Loss of Estate Nil Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10%
as per Pranay Sethi)
Funeral Expenses Rs.18,000/- Rs.16,500/-
(Rs.15,000/- + 10%
as per Pranay Sethi)
2009 ACJ 1208(SC)
3 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
2018 Law Suit (SC) 904
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.1389 of 2016
Loss of love & affection Rs.20,000/- Nil
Loss of Filial Consortium Nil Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- to each
petitioner as per
Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram)
Total Rs.6,50,000/- Rs.7,93,400/-
12. Though the claimed amount is Rs.7,00,000/-, invoking the
principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh5, this Court is
empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the
compensation from Rs.6,50,000/- to Rs.7,93,400/- (Rupees Seven
Lakh, ninety three thousand and four hundred only) with interest at
7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. The said
amount shall be apportioned in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal.
The respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together
with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already
deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. However, the appellants/claimants are
directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount within
one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. There
shall be no order as to costs.
MANU/SC/0480/2013
6 RRN,J
MACMA No.1389 of 2016
As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
1st day of March, 2023
BDR
