Telangana High Court
S Manjula, Secunderabad And 3 Others vs Ch Anjaiah, Ranga Reddy Dist And 2 Others on 15 April, 2024
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1509 OF 2017
AND
M.A.C.M.A. No.1787 OF 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji)
These appeals have been preferred by the claim petitioners
and the respondent No.3/insurer disputing the quantum of
compensation awarded in the decree and order dated 07.10.2016
in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Secunderabad.
2. We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Maddisetty, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr.M. Satish Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3/Insurer.
3. For the facility, the appellants are hereinafter referred to as
per their rank before the tribunal.
4. The petitioners' case in brief is that on 09.02.2015 while
Mr.S.Srisailam @ Srisailam Yadav/deceased was attending
gardening work, one maxi cab bearing registration No. AP-28-TA-
9139 (for short, 'the maxi cab') came in rash and negligent manner
SPJ&NTRJ
2 Macmas_1509_2017&1787_2017
at high speed and dashed him and caused fatal injuries. Later
while undergoing treatment he succumbed.
5. Thereupon the petitioners/wife, son, daughter and mother of
the deceased filed claim pleading that the deceased was aged
about 35 years and as gardener in HMDA was earning Rs.21,000/-
per month and used to contribute all his earnings on them. Thus
for loss of dependency claimed compensation of Rs.45 lakhs. The
tribunal after inquiry awarded Rs.30,65,000/- with interest at 7.5%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization
against the driver, owner and insurer of the maxi cab/respondents
1 to 3.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
tribunal had erroneously ignored future prospects of the deceased
and the multiplier employed is improper. Thus prayed for
reassessment and to award just compensation.
7. The respondent No.3/insurer, in appeal, contested that the
tribunal without there being valid evidence considered the monthly
income and assessed compensation on higher side. Further the
amounts awarded towards conventional heads are against the
SPJ&NTRJ
3 Macmas_1509_2017&1787_2017
settled propositions and the interest rate granted is beyond the
settled positions. Hence prayed for interference.
8. We have duly considered the submissions of the learned
counsel and perused the materials on record.
9. The factors of the accident, death of the deceased and the
liability of the respondents to pay compensation are not in dispute.
10. As per the petitioners the deceased was aged about 35
years and as gardener in HMDA was earning Rs.21,000/- per
month. No document has been placed to prove the age of the
deceased. Therefore, by considering the entries in inquest and
post mortem examination report/Exs:A-4 and A-5, the relevant age
of the deceased can safely be taken at 36 years.
11. The Forest Manager in HMDA as PW-3 deposed that the
deceased was working as plantation assistant in Urban Forestry
Department, HMDA and was earning Rs.21,000/- per month as
salary. He has validated the appointment letter/Ex.A-7 and salary
certificate/Ex.A-8. Relying on this evidence, the tribunal has rightly
believed the occupation and monthly income at Rs.21,000/-.
Hence this finding is affirmed.
SPJ&NTRJ
4 Macmas_1509_2017&1787_2017
12. In assessment of compensation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others1
and Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another2 unequivocally held that the gross income less tax payable
shall be taken as actual income. As noted above, the annual gross
income of the deceased would be of 2,52,000/- (Rs.21,000/- x 12)
and after deducting the professional tax, Rs.2,50,000/- can be
taken as annual income which is within taxable limit. For the age
and regular employment as per the directives of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the dictum of Pranay Sethi (supra) 50% of the
income has to be added towards future prospects. Thus the
annual income of the deceased would be of Rs.3,75,000/-. As the
dependants are four in number, 1/4th of the income has to be
deducted towards personal living expenses. Thus the annual
contribution of the deceased to the family would be of
Rs.2,81,250/-. This amount if multiplied with the relevant multiplier
applicable to the age of the deceased as prescribed in the authority
of Sarla Verma (supra) i.e. 15, the sum would come to
Rs.42,18,750/-. This amount would be the compensation for loss of
dependency.
1 (2017) 16 SCC 860
2 2009 ACJ 1298
SPJ&NTRJ
5 Macmas_1509_2017&1787_2017
13. In addition, as per the judgment in United India Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 3 the
petitioners are entitled for spousal, parental and filial consortium at
Rs.48,400/- each and Rs.36,300/- towards loss of estate and
funeral expenses.
14. Correspondingly, the petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.44,48,650/- (Rupees forty four lakhs forty eight
thousand six hundred and fifty only). As the rate of interest granted
by the tribunal is in conformity with the bank rate and the interest
rate granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in recent judgments of
motor accident claim matters, no impropriety is found. As such the
interest rate awarded by the tribunal is maintained and the ratio of
apportionment among the petitioners shall remain as per the
impugned order. The respondent No.3/insurer is directed to
deposit the differential compensation amount within four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
15. Accordingly the impugned order stands modified.
16. Resultantly, M.A.C.M.A. No.1509 of 2017 filed by the
petitioners is partly allowed with proportionate costs and
2021(11) SCC 780
SPJ&NTRJ
6 Macmas_1509_2017&1787_2017
M.A.C.M.A.No.1787 of 2017 filed by the respondent No.3/insurer is
dismissed without costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands
closed.
______________
SUJOY PAUL, J
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date:15.04.2024
ccm
