Telangana High Court

Palvath Bujji vs Mr N V Balya 2 Others on 14 March, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

                                   1                                RRN,J
                                                      MACMA No.130 of 2014


 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.130 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is preferred by the appellants/petitioners

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking

enhancement of compensation, aggrieved by the order and decree

dt.24.09.2013 passed in O.P.No.554 of 2009 by the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Mahabubnagar (for short "the Tribunal").

2. Heard Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for

appearing for the appellants/petitioners and Sri A. Ramakrishna

Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and Sri

G.V. Jayasimha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The petitioner is the wife of Patlavath Balu (hereinafter

referred to as "deceased").

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.04.2008 at about 4.30

a.m., while the deceased was travelling in Karnataka RTC Bus

bearing No.KA-27-F-02948 from Shadnagar to Hyderabad, on lorry

bearing No.AAT-2737 came in opposite direction at high speed in a 2 RRN,J MACMA No.130 of 2014

rash and negligent manner and hit the bus in which the deceased

was travelling. Due to this, the deceased and inmates of the bus

were sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, the

deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Shadnagar, from

there he was referred to O.G.H., Hyderabad, and thereafter he was

shifted to Siddhartha Hospital & Research Centre, Shadnagar, from

there again he was shifted to Life Hospital, Institute of Medical

Sciences, Hyderabad and from there he was referred to Neuro

Surgeon Dr. K. Srinivas. On 22.04.2008 he was referred to higher

centre and against he was shifted to O.G.H. and admitted as an

inpatient on 07.06.2008 and later discharged on 04.07.2008.

Later, he took treatment privately and at last, he succumbed to

injuries on 30.10.2008. It is the further case of the petitioner that

the deceased was doing mason work and earning Rs.4,000/- per

month and also getting Rs.50,000/- per annum on agriculture.

On the complaint of the driver of Karnataka RTC Bus, police

Shadnagar registered a case in Cr.No.132 of 2008 under Sections

304-A and 337 IPC and after completion of the investigation, police

filed charge-sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle bearing

No.AAP-2737. Due to the said accident, the first petitioner lost

her life partner. Therefore, the petitioner claimed

compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

                                  3                                  RRN,J
                                                      MACMA No.130 of 2014

5. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte, and respondents

No.2 and 3 filed counter before the Tribunal. Respondent

No.2 contended that the accident was not due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry

bearing No.AAP-2737. Respondent No.3 contended that the

accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the Karnataka RTC Bus bearing No.KA-27-F-02948 and

the same was taken place due to rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.AAP-2737 .

Hence, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

6. To prove her case, the petitioner got examined PW.1

to PW.3 and marked Ex.A1 to A10. No oral or documentary

evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

7. On appreciating the evidence on record, the

Tribunal allowed the claim in part by granting compensation of

Rs.4,15,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. to the petitioner.

Questioning the quantum, the present appeal is filed.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the age,

occupation and income of the deceased and the Tribunal 4 RRN,J MACMA No.130 of 2014

rejected the claim of Rs.2.0 lakh towards medical expenses

though the deceased was under treatment for about six

months in different Hospitals. He further contended that the

Tribunal awarded very meagre amounts under different

conventional heads. Accordingly, prayed to enhance the

compensation amount.

9. Opposing the same, the learned Counsel appearing

for the respondents contended that the Tribunal was justified

in awarding the compensation amount under various heads

and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Upon careful perusal of the record and in light of

the submissions made by both counsel, this Court is of the

considered view that the Tribunal ought to have considered

the income of the deceased more than that of which it arrived

at. It is an undisputed fact that the deceased was working as

a mason and was having agricultural lands in view of

Ex.A10/certified copies of pahanies for the years 2005-06 to

2007-08. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased

as a mason at Rs.4,000/- per month, and Rs.20,000/- per

annum on agriculture. However, time and again, this Court 5 RRN,J MACMA No.130 of 2014

has considered the minimum monthly earnings of a skilled

labour to be at Rs.5,000/-. As such, this Court is inclined to

fix the monthly earnings of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per

month, and the Tribunal has rightly taken the annual income

of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- on agriculture. The Tribunal

did not add future prospects to the income of the deceased

and the same exercise would be done, including enhancing

compensation under different heads, as follows:

The petitioners were granted Rs.4,88,125/- 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.4,000/- p.m Rs.5,000/- p.m

Annual income Rs.48,000/- Rs.60,000/- + 20,000/-

(Rs.4,000/- x 12) + Rs.20,000/- on (Rs.5,000 x 12) + agriculture Rs.20,000/- on agriculture

Future prospects Nil Rs.32,000/- (40% to be taken as per Pranay (Since the Tribunal Sethi) considered the age of the deceased as 30 years)

Annual Income + Future Rs.68,000/- + Nil Rs.1,12,000/-

prospects

1/3rd Deduction towards Rs.22,666/- Rs.37,333/-

        personal expenses


          Age Multiplier                 17              "17" (As per Sarla
                                             6                                      RRN,J
                                                                     MACMA No.130 of 2014

                                                                     Verma)

           Loss of dependency           Rs.7,72,548/-          Rs.12,69,339/-
                                       (45,444/- x 17)        (Rs.74,667/- x 17)
                                      excluding future         including future
                                         prospects.               prospects

                                      (But, only Rs.4.00
                                    lakhs awarded under
                                        the said head)

             Loss of Estate                 Nil             Rs.16,500/-
                                                            (Rs.15,000/- + 10% as
                                                            per Pranay Sethi)

            Funeral Expenses             Rs.5,000/-         Rs.16,500/-
                                                            (Rs.15,000/- + 10% as
                                                            per Pranay Sethi)

       Loss of Spousal Consortium        Rs.5,000/-         Rs.44,000/-

                                                            (Rs.40,000/- + 10% as
                                                            per Pranay Sethi)

             Transportation             Rs.5,000/-          Rs.10,000/-

                 Total                 Rs.4,15,000/-          Rs.13,56,339/-