Telangana High Court
Janne Thirupathamma 5 Others vs Shai Ahammed Ali Another on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.859 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A. NO. 859 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
The present M.A.C.M.A is filed by the appellants/petitioners
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the
order and decree dt. 13.01.2015 passed in M.V.O.P No. 2213 of
2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short 'the
Tribunal). This is a case of death.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claim petition was filed for Rs.8,00,000/- on account
of the death of one J.Ramulu (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased') and the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,68,800/- to the
petitioners and aggrieved by the quantum, the present appeal is filed
for enhancement of the compensation amount.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. The petitioners contended that the deceased, on
05.06.2012 at about 7.00 pm was going to his house along with one
K. Laxamaiah in their cycles and when they reached Bharathi Gas
Company, the driver of a car bearing No. AP-7-AN-5355 belonging to
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.859 of 2015
the 1st respondent was driven at high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the deceased. Due to the accident, the
deceased suffered a severe head injury and injuries to other parts of
his body and died on the spot. The deceased was aged 48 years,
professing agriculture and was running a dairy farm by selling milk
to vegetable vendors and used to earn Rs.12,000/- p.m. Hence, on
the account of loss of dependency, the petitioners filed the claim
petition.
6. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal
and the 2nd Respondent/Insurance Company filed counter denying
the allegations made in the claim petition.
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs.1-3
and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. No oral evidence was adduced by the
2nd respondent but Ex.B1 was marked.
8. On appreciating the evidence available on record, the
Tribunal passed the impugned order as stated supra, which is under
challenge.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
compensation awarded was meagre and the Tribunal ought to have
taken the income of the deceased at least at Rs.8,000/- per month
in view of the Gazette Publication dt.31.05.2010 wherein the
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.859 of 2015
Government of India notified that workmen under the Employees'
Compensation Act are entitled to a minimum of Rs.8,000/- p.m as
wages. He further contended that the Tribunal did not award future
prospects on the income of the deceased and further failed to award
just compensation under the conventional heads. Accordingly,
prayed to enhance the compensation.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company argued that there is no fault in the
impugned order as the petitioners failed to file any income proof of
the deceased. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. The petitioners have not filed any document in proof of
income of the deceased and the Tribunal has made guesswork with
respect to the income of the deceased and rightly arrived at
Rs.6,000/- p.m and the same is justified as the Tribunal took note of
the fact that the deceased was working in the field of agriculture.
The contention of the petitioners that the Gazette Notification (supra)
should be considered in fixing the income of the deceased at
Rs.8,000/- p.m is rejected as it is specifically mentioned that only
the employees who fall under the Employees Compensation Act,
1923 are entitled to such monthly wages. As such, this Court is not
inclined to re-evaluate the monthly income of the deceased.
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.859 of 2015
12. However, the Tribunal failed to award future prospects
and compensation under other heads and the petitioners are entitled
to enhancement of compensation. For the calculation of loss of
dependency, the addition of future prospects of 25% to the monthly
income of the deceased is appropriate as he was aged 50 years.
Hence, Rs.6,000/- + 25% = Rs.7,500/- p.m. and the same would
come to Rs.7,500/- x 12 = Rs.90,000/- annually. One-fifth amount
is to be deducted towards contribution as there are 6 dependants
and the apt multiplier is '13'. Hence, Rs.90,000/- (-) 1/5 x 13 =
9,36,000/- is the loss of dependency. As such, the petitioners are
entitled to compensation as under:
Head Amount
Loss of dependency Rs. 9,36,000/-
Loss of Spousal Consortium Rs.44,000/-(Rs.40,000/- +
10%) as per Pranay Sethi1.
Loss of Estate Rs.16,500 (Rs.15,000/- + 10%)
as per Pranay Sethi.
Funeral expenses Rs.16,500 (Rs.15,000/- + 10%)
as per Pranay Sethi.
Filial Consortium to 6th Rs.40,000/- as per Magma
respondent. General Insurance2
Total Rs. 10,53,000/-
13. Petitioners No.2 to 5 claimed Rs.40,000/- each towards
loss of consortium but as seen from the record, they are all majors,
as such, they are not entitled to the same.
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
2018) 18 SCC 130
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.859 of 2015
14. In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.10,53,000/-
towards compensation. Though the claimed amount is
Rs.8,00,000/- invoking the principle of just compensation, and in
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh
vs. Rajbir Singh3 , and in a catena of decisions, this Court is
empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.7,68,800/- to Rs.10,53,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Only). The respondents are
directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The difference of the
enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of
7.5%. The manner in which ratio the awarded amount apportioned
by the Tribunal is to be maintained. The appellants are directed to
deposit the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
14th day of March, 2023
BDR
MANU/SC/0480/2013
