Telangana High Court
P Laxmaiah And 2 Others vs M Rama Krishna And Another on 2 August, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1205 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- VII Additional District
Judge, Khammam (for short, the Tribunal), in M.A.T.O.P.No.186 of
2016, dated 08.02.2018, the claim petitioners preferred the present
Appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is the
husband and the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the sons of Smt.Pokala
Rama (hereinafter be referred as 'the deceased') filed a claim
petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the
death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
21.08.2015. As per the petitioners, on the fateful day, the
deceased along with her husband proceeded to Maddirala
Village, Nutankal Mandal, Nalgonda District, on their Hero Honda
Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.AP-20P-9679 and when they
reached near Patarlapadu Crossroads, one Maruti Swift Car
bearing No.AP-05BK-8787, which was driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed their motor cycle. As
MGP,J
a result, both of them fell down on the road and sustained injuries.
Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Yashoda
Hospital, Nalgonda 'X' roads, Malakpet, Hyderabad for medical
treatment and while undergoing treatment, Smt.Pokala Rama
succumbed to injuries on 23.08.2015. It is further contended that
the Police of Tirumalayapalem Police Station, registered a case in
Crime No.177 of 2015 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of
the crime vehicle. It is further contended that the accident
occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the Maruti Swift Car bearing No.AP-20P-9679 and hence filed
claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 & 2, being the owner
and insurer of the crime vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the subject Maruti
Swift Car, filed his counter and denied the age, avocation and
earnings of the deceased and further contended that the vehicle
was insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company, as such,
respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay compensation and prayed to
dismiss the claim against him.
5. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age,
avocation, earnings and contended that there is no involvement of
the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident and the driver of
MGP,J
the crime vehicle do not possess a valid driving license as on the
date of accident and hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay
compensation. It is also contended that the claim petition is not
maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties and that the
claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed
to dismiss the claim against it.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the accident took place on 21.08.2015 due
to the rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Swift Car
bearing No.AP-05BK-8787 by its rider?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as
prayed for? If so, to what amount and from which of
the respondents?
3. To what relief?
7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to 3
were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of
respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but however, Ex.B1-
Copy of Insurance policy of the crime vehicle was marked.
8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents
available on record, partly allowed the claim petition of the
petitioners by awarding compensation of Rs.6,73,589/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
MGP,J
deposit. Not satisfied with the said compensation amount, the
present appeal by the claim petitioners.
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for
Appellants/claim petitioners is that though the claim petitioners
have prove their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence
and also by relying upon documents under Exs.A1 to A10, but the
learned Tribunal without considering the same in proper
perspective had awarded meagre amounts and further, the learned
Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased as she was
the owner of the lorry and therefore, prays the Court to award
reasonable compensation by allowing the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent
No.2/ Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal after
considering all the aspects had awarded reasonable compensation
for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
12. Now the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers
from any irregularity?
MGP,J
POINT:-
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
filed by both parties. PW1 is the husband of the deceased who
deposed about the manner of accident and death of the deceased.
PW2, who is Sweet Shop Owner, deposed in his evidence that he
knew PW1 and the deceased for the last five years and during her
life time, she used to do Milk vending business of her own and he
used to purchase 40 to 50 litres of Milk per day from her and he
used to pay Rs.50/- per litre. PW2 in his cross-examination stated
that there is no documentary proof to show that he used to
purchase 40 to 50 litres of Milk per day and also there is no
accounts of payment nor receipts of the amounts paid to the
deceased.
14. PW3, who is a Doctor, deposed in his evidence that he is
working as RMO in Yashoda Hospital and on the date of accident
i.e., on 22.08.2015, the deceased was admitted as inpatienet in
their hospital on 22.08.2015 and while she was undergoing
treatment, she succumbed to the injuries on 24.08.2015 and the
cause of death was due to severe head injury. In the cross-
examination, he stated that he has not treated the patient
personally and as per Ex.A8, the relatives of the patient paid an
amount of Rs.60,000/- out of Rs.1,59,460/-
MGP,J
15. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute regarding the
manner of the accident and death of the deceased. A perusal of
Ex.A1 discloses that Police of Tirumalayapalem Police Station
registered a case in Crime No.177 of 2015 under Section 337 IPC,
took up investigation and laid charge sheet against the driver of
the Maruti Swift Car under Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the post-mortem
examination report which discloses that the cause of death was
due to Head injury. Ex.A4 is the inquest report. Ex.A5 are the
Medical Bills. Ex.A6 is the Spiral City Scan bill. Ex.A7 are the
Medical prescriptions. Ex.A8 is the final bill of Yashoda Hospital,
Hyderabad. Ex.A9 is the Certificate issued by Mohan Sweets
Home, Khammam. Ex.A10 is the Identity card of Lorry owners
Association, Khammam. The Exhibits under A5 to A8 shows the
treatment undergone by the deceased prior to the death.
16. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence and
documents filed, has taken net monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.4,500/ and deducted 1/3rd income towards personal expenses
and applied relevant multiplier and awarded compensation of
Rs.6,73,589/-.
17. It is pertinent to state that though the income of the
deceased as Milk Vendor is not proved through the evidence of
PW2, but the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the
MGP,J
deceased @ Rs.4,500/-. This Court, by considering the avocation
of the deceased as Milk Vendor and also Member of Lorry Owners
Association as per Ex.A10, is hereby inclined to fix the monthly
income of the deceased @ Rs.6,500/- by relying upon the
Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court reported in Syed Sadiq &
Others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited 1 and calculate the compensation as under:-
18. The age of the deceased is taken as 40 years as per post-
mortem examination report. If 25% is added towards her
established income as per the decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.Pranay Sethi [2017 16 SCC
680], then the future loss of income comes to Rs.8,125/- per
month. If 1/3rd is deduced towards her contribution to the family,
then the net monthly income comes to Rs.5,417/- and the annual
comes to Rs.65,004/- and after applying the relevant multiplier
'15', then the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,75,060/-.
This Court by relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay Sethi &
others (2017 ACJ 2700), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had
fixed reasonable figures on conventional heads, viz., loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses as Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.
40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively which in all comes to
(2014) 2 SCC 735
MGP,J
Rs.70,000/- (which shall carry 10% enhancement for every three
years), is inclined to award a sum of Rs.77,000/- towards non-
pecuniary damages. Hence, the total compensation, to which the
appellants are entitled, comes to Rs.10,52,060/-.
19. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing the
amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal from
Rs.6,73,589/- to Rs.10,52,060/- which carries interest @ 7.5%
per annum payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. Upon such payment made, the appellants are entitled
to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the
learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.02.08.2024.
ysk
