E.Rambabu vs Dokuri Prabhaker Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 1455 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.352 of 2019
JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

in the order and decree, dated 27.09.2018 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1664 of 2013 on the file of the chairman, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the

appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will

be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a

petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the

death of one E.Devamma, mother of claimant Nos. 1 and 2

(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a

motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.03.2013.

According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the

deceased, along with her son and granddaughter, was

proceeding on scooty bearing No. AP 28 CA 1840 from KPHB

church to Yellammaband and at about 05:00 p.m., when she

reached near Bhavani Textiles, one Car bearing No. AP 28 TV

MGP, J Macma_352_2019

3132, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent

No. 2, being driven by its driver, came from opposite direction

in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a

result, the deceased fell down and sustained multiple injuries.

Immediately, she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital,

for treatment but the deceased succumbed to the injuries

while undergoing treatment. According to the claimants, the

deceased was aged 48 years and earning Rs.7,500/- per

month as skilled worker. Therefore, the claimants, being

children of deceased, filed the claim petition against the

respondent Nos.1 & 2 claiming compensation of Rs.10.00

lakhs towards compensation under different heads.

4. Before the tribunal, while the respondent No. 1

remained ex parte, the respondent No. 2 filed counter denying

the petition averments and also denied the age, income,

avocation and manner of the accident. He further contended

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive

and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Considering the claim of appellants, counter filed by

respondent No. 2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary

evidence, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part, awarding a

MGP, J Macma_352_2019

total compensation of Rs.2,40,234/- along with costs and

interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date

of realization, to be deposited by the respondent Nos.1 & 2,

jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the claimants

have filed this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused

the material available on record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the

Tribunal failed to consider the income of the deceased at

Rs.7,500/- per month as claimed by the appellants but has

fixed the meagre income of Rs.4,500/- per month. He further

contended that the Tribunal has erred in not adding future

prospects as per the decision of Apex Court.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for

the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 herein has

contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted

the compensation and the same needs no interference by this

Court.

MGP, J Macma_352_2019

9. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PW.1, eyewitness to the accident,

coupled with the documentary evidence available on record

i.e., Exs.A.1, FIR & A.2, Charge sheet, held that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car

bearing No. AP 28 TV 3132. Therefore, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal

which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper

perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is

with regard to the quantum of compensation.

10. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

although the claimants contended that the deceased was aged

about 48 years, Exs.A.4, Post mortem examination report &

A.1, FIR shows that the deceased was aged about 50 years

and Ex.A.6, medical bills, Sankya Hospital, Hyderabad, shows

the age of the deceased as 62 years. The Tribunal has

erroneously taken the age of the deceased as 62 years basing

on the Ex.A.6, medical bills, Sankya Hospital, Hyderabad.

Hence, Considering the Ex.A.4, postmortem examination

report, this Court is inclined to take the age of the deceased

as 50 years. Coming to the income of the deceased, according

MGP, J Macma_352_2019

to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- per

month as skilled worker. But no evidence is adduced to prove

the income or avocation of the deceased. In such

circumstances, the Tribunal has taken the income of the

deceased at Rs.4,500/-per month. However, even considering

the avocation of the deceased as coolie, the fixation of the said

income by the Tribunal appears to be less. It is observed by

the Court that the deceased was widow and was working hard

for the welfare of the family apart from doing unpaid house

hold work. Hence, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly

income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. Since, the deceased

was aged 50 years, 10% was added towards future prospects

as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, which

works out to Rs.6,600/- (Rs.6,000 + Rs.600). As there are two

dependents, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal

expenses. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses

and living expenses, the net monthly income of the deceased

works out to Rs.4,400/- (Rs.6,600 - Rs.2,200). Since the age

of the deceased was 50 years, as held by the Tribunal, the

2017 ACJ 2700

MGP, J Macma_352_2019

appropriate multiplier is '13' as per the guidelines laid down

by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation2. Adopting multiplier '13', the total loss of

dependency comes to Rs.6,86,400/- (Rs.4,400 x 12 x 13).

That apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- under

the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court

in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Further, the claimants, being the

major sons of the deceased, are not entitled for parental

consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma

General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @

Chuhru Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are

entitled to compensation of Rs.7,19,400/-.

11. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, as per the

decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir

Singh and others4, the claimants are entitled to interest @

7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the

date of petition till realization but not 6% as was awarded by

the Tribunal.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

(2018) 18 SCC 130 4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP, J Macma_352_2019

12. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

from Rs.2,40,234/- to Rs.7,19,400/-. The enhanced amount

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till

the date of realization to be payable by the respondent Nos. 1

& 2 jointly and severally. The amount shall be deposited

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to

withdraw their respective share of compensation without

furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 29.03.2023 gms

MGP, J Macma_352_2019

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.352 of 2019

DATE: 29.03.2023

gms