Telangana High Court
Desini Bulli Narayana vs Smt. Siguru Samatha And Another on 15 November, 2023
Bench: K. Sujana
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1954 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated
10.01.2006 in O.P.No.451 of 2005 passed by the learned I Additional
District Judge, Karmingar, the appellant/claimant preferred the present
appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.1,22,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty-Two Thousand only) as
compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum
thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal
directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit the amount.
3. The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal
under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) for the injuries
sustained by the appellant in the road accident.
4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the private service bus bearing No.
AP07T4142 and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company Limited.
5. Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2.
SKS,J
MACMA.No.1954_2008
6. Insurance Company not filed any appeal disputing the liability and
also disputing the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
7. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellant that
the appellant is the father of the deceased and an eye witness for the
accident. The evidence of the appellant is that the deceased is the only
daughter and she has aged about 16 years and was prosecuting her studies
beside helping him in agricultural works. However, the wife of the appellant
is also died in the same accident. Therefore, appellant is the only dependent.
Further, he deposed about the accident which took place on 03.04.2004
that the deceased was going along with her mother and other women to
attend calls of nature. Appellant is also going on the same purpose towards
another direction. Then, a bus bearing No.AP7T4142 came from Hyderabad,
proceeding towards Manthani in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the deceased and his wife and some other women, as a result they
sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
8. The Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and
documentary, gave a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1 and the same vehicle is insured with
respondent No.2, as such, the Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.1,22,000/- payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the
quantum, the claimant filed the present appeal.
SKS,J
MACMA.No.1954_2008
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal
awarded sufficient amount and there is no need to enhance the said
amount.
10. As seen from the record, to prove the claim, the appellant himself
examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3.
11. With regard to the income of the deceased on the date of accident, as
seen from the record, the deceased is an unmarried daughter of the
appellant. Hence, this Court is inclined to consider the salary of
deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month. As the daughter is unmarried 50% of
the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, as per law laid
down in Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 1. Thus, the
annual contribution of the deceased to the claimant would be of Rs.12,000/-
(2000-1000 X 12) per annum and as far as the multiplier is concerned,
appropriate multiplier for the age group of 16 is '18' then the total amount
comes to Rs.2,16,000/-. The claimant is entitled for the said amount under
the head of loss of future income. As there is one claimant, he is entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. This Court is inclined to grant
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate.
12. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the claimants are
entitled to the following amounts:
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
SKS,J
MACMA.No.1954_2008
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of future income Rs.2,16,000/-
(2) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
(3) Loss of parental consortium Rs.40,000/-
(4) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.2,86,000/-
13. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits
that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation
and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond
the claim made which is impermissible under law.
14. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and another 2, the Apex Court while referring
to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 3 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of
the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only,
but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the
absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any
competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim
of an accident."
15. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the
claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed.
(2011) 10 SCC 756
2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
SKS,J
MACMA.No.1954_2008
Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where
the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts
should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and
reasonable extent.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,22,000/- to
Rs.2,86,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty-Six Thousand only). The enhanced
amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by
the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents jointly and
severally after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one(1)
month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Judgment and
thereafter, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. However, the
claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
DATE:
SAI
