S.Gangamma And 5 Ors vs A.Janardhan Reddy And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3979 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated

05.06.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.61 of 2007 by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, (for

short 'the Tribunal'), the appellants/petitioners preferred

the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

On 21.12.2006 at about 9.30 a.m., while one

Narasimha (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was

proceeding on a TVS motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-P-4093

from Ghatkesar to Annojiguda, one lorry bearing No.AP-26-

T-8348, coming from Hyderabad towards Ghatkesar in a

rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed

against the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained

grievous injuries and died on the spot. The Police 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011

Ghatkesar registered a case in Cr.No.277 of 2006 for the

offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the

driver of the offending lorry. Therefore, the petitioners filed

the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. To prove the petitioners' case, PWs.1 to 3 were

examined and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the

respondents, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were

marked.

5. After hearing both sides and after considering

the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest

@ 9 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the

same, the petitioners filed the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased's

income at Rs.100/- per day instead of Rs.300/- per day.

3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011

The Tribunal erred in fixing the age of the deceased as 63

years instead of 50 years. The Tribunal ought to have

applied the multiplier '13' instead of '5'. The Tribunal

erroneously deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards the

personal expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal ought to

have awarded just compensation under other heads and,

therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very

meager and unjustifiable.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent contended that the Tribunal, after considering

the evidence available on record, has awarded just

compensation, which needs no interference.

9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the

manner in which the accident took place has become final,

as the respondents do not challenge the same.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

stated that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per

month by doing toddy supply and contracts. In support of

their contention, the petitioners have examined PW.3-

4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011

Director of Kallu Geeta Parishramika Sahakara Sangham,

Ghatkesar. PW.3 deposed that the deceased was a member

of their Society and the deceased was working as a toddy

tapper and selling toddy and earning Rs.300/- to Rs.350/-

per day and he identified Ex.A-4 issued by their Society.

The evidence of PW.3 is not supported by any documentary

evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal fixed the income of the

deceased at Rs.100/- per day, which is very meager. In the

changed circumstances, even a coolie is getting a monthly

income of Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, as per the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in RAMCHANDRAPPA Vs. MANAGER,

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED 1, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income

of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. The annual income of the

deceased would come to Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500/- X 12).

From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards the personal

expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation 2 as the dependents are six in

number. After deducting 1/4th amount towards his

personal and living expenses, the contribution of the

(2011) 13 SCC 236

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 5 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011

deceased to the family would be Rs.40,500/- (Rs.54,000/- -

Rs.13,500/-) per annum. To prove the deceased's age, the

petitioners are relying on Ex.A-3-Post Mortem Report and

Ex.A-5-Identity Card issued in the year 1987. As per Ex.A-

5 as on 09.09.1987 the deceased's age was 43 years. If

Ex.A-5 is taken into consideration, the age of the deceased

was 63 years as on the date of the accident. The petitioners

have not filed any evidence to prove the age of the deceased.

By taking into consideration the age mentioned under Ex.A-

5, the Tribunal rightly fixed the age of the deceased as 63

years and the same needs no interference by this Court. As

per SARLA VERMA's case (2 supra) 3, the appropriate

multiplier applicable for the age of the deceased is '7'.

Adopting multiplier '7', the total loss of dependency works

out to Rs.2,83,500/- (Rs.40,500/- x 7). The petitioners are

further entitled to Rs.77,000/- (Rs.40,000/- + 15,000 +

Rs.15,000/- + 10%) towards loss of spousal consortium,

loss of estate and funeral expenses as per Pranay Sethi

(supra). Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to

compensation of Rs.2,83,500/-.

    2009 ACJT 1298 (SC)
                                   6                                    RRN,J
                                                    M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011

11. The Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest at

9% per annum, which needs no interference by this Court.

However, the petitioners are entitled to the interest @ 7.5%

per annum on the enhanced compensation.

12. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the

enhanced compensation of Rs.2,83,500/- as against the

awarded amount of Rs.1,35,000/-.

13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part,

and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is

enhanced from Rs.1,35,000/- to Rs.2,83,500/- (Rupees

two lakh eighty three thousand five hundred only) with

interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the

date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents

are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and

interest, 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. The

compensation amount shall be apportioned among the

petitioners in the same proportion in which original

compensation amounts were directed to be apportioned by 7 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2169 of 2011

the Tribunal. On such deposit, the petitioners are

permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts. No

order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

15th November, 2023 Prv