United India Insurance Company ... vs Addagullasathyalaxmi And 3 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1093 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No. 2355 of 2008

     J U D G M E N T:

This is an Appeal preferred by the Insurance

Company aggrieved by the Award dated 15.06.2007 in O.P.No. 250

of 2002 passed by the learned Special Judge for the trial of

Offences under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act - cum- VI Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - XX Additional Chief Judge at

Secunderabad.

2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation

for the death of the husband of the 1st claimant in the accident

that occurred on 23.01.2002 at about 14.00 hours near Nacharam

Main road while he was going on TVS Moped bearing Registration

No. AP 10D 4317 as rider. At that time, the driver of the oil tanker

bearing No. AIH 1899 which was proceeding towards Habsiguda

from Mallapur drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner

with high speed and dashed TVS moped and dragged the deceased

for a distance of 200 yards. The deceased was immediately shifted

to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment and then to CDR

Hospital, Secunderabad where he was declared dead while

undergoing treatment.

3. In respect of the accident, two O.Ps. were filed and

common award was passed. As far as O.P.No. 250 of 2022 is

concerned, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

and the Court below granted Rs. 4,95,600/-.

4. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was

doing kirana business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The

Tribunal had taken his income as Rs.4,500/- and considering the

age of the deceased as 50, applied multiplier '13' and granted

compensation of Rs.4,95,600/-. The Insurance Company is before

this Court questioning the quantum of compensation.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance

Company Sri Srinivasa Rao V. submits that even for taking income

as Rs.4,500/- there is no evidence on record and the Court below

ought not to have the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. It is

submitted that the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier '13'. It

is submitted that the Tribunal without considering these facts

had granted the compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants Ms. Vladimeer

Khatoon submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

is just and reasonable. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance1,

without there being any evidence, had taken the income of a daily

labourer as Rs.4,500/- per month. It is further submitted that the

(2011) 13 SCC 236

Insurance Company failed to make out any ground seeking

interference with the Award passed by the Tribunal.

7. With regard to the income, it is the case of the

claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

However, the Tribunal had taken Rs.4,500/-. Applying the law laid

down in Ramachandrappa's case, this Court is of the view that

the Court below had rightly taken the income of the deceased as

Rs.4,500/- which needs no interference.

8. Coming to the multiplier, as per the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation2, the multiplier for the age of 50 years is '13'. The

Tribunal had rightly applied the multiplier and granted the

compensation. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to

interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal.

9. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

------------------------------------ LALITHA KANNEGANTI,J 09th March 2023

ksld

(2009) 6 SCC 121