Telangana High Court
Donthula Shankaraiah And 3 Ors vs Tadakapalli Kanaiah And 2 Ors on 14 August, 2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.Nos.3060 & 3061 of 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. MACMA.No.3060 of 2008 is filed against M.V.O.P.No.729
of 2006 and MACMA.No.3061 of 2008 is filed against
M.V.O.P.no.728 of 2006, seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The wife and husband who were going on two wheeler died
due to accident and accordingly two different M.V.O.Ps were filed
seeking compensation. Since both the deaths are on account of
one accident, these appeals can be disposed off by way of this
common judgment.
3. During the pendency of these appeals Cheekoti Anantha
Ramulu who is the 4th appellant in MACMA.No.3060 of 2008
and sole appellant in MACMA.No.3061 of 2008, died.
Accordingly, applications are filed to bring the legal
representatives on record and the same were allowed.
4. First respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner
and third respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
5. On 07.04.2006, both the deceased in the appeals (wife and
husband) were going on motor cycle and when they reached
outskirts of the Thimmapur, the offending vehicle which is TATA
van bearing No.AP 9T 9512 came from behind and dashed the
motorcycle, due to which both husband and wife fell down,
sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
6. The father of the deceased husband filed OP.No.728 of
2006 and OP.No.729 of 2006 was filed by the father, mother,
sister and father-in-law of the deceased wife.
7. OP.No.728 of 2006 was allowed in part granting
compensation of Rs.4,53,640/- and OP.No.729 of 2006 was
allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.54,500/-.
MACMA.No.3060 OF 2008:
8. Since the Tribunal found that the income claimed by the
claimants in OP.No.729/2006 that the wife was earning
Rs.6,000/- per month was not proved by any documentary
evidence, granted compensation under no fault liability. Further,
the Tribunal found that the father-in-law and mother of the
deceased wife were only entitled for compensation and
accordingly dismissed the claim of the father and sister.
9. Learned Counsel appearing in both the appeals submit
that the parents cannot be deprived of compensation of a
married daughter. He relied on the Judgment of High Court of
Madras in Glory Bai and another v. SKA Noojahan Beevi and
others 1.
10. Counsel further submitted that insofar as the wife is
concerned, though claim is made that she was earning
Rs.6,000/- per month doing tailoring work, however, the
Tribunal without considering the same committed an error in
granting compensation only Rs.54,500/- which is incorrect.
11. Having gone through the record, the manner in which the
accident had taken place and that the offending vehicle was at
fault is not disputed. Learned Tribunal Judge having found that
compensation can be granted under Section 166 of the M.V.Act
insofar as the husband is concerned, committed an error in
granting compensation under Section 163(3) of the M.V.Act.
insofar as the wife is concerned. No reasons are given for
adopting grant of compensation for no fault liability to the wife.
The said finding is erroneous and hereby set aside.
2011 Law Suit (Mad) 2951
12. It was claimed that the deceased wife was earning an
amount of Rs.6,000/- per month by doing tailoring work. As
already stated no fault liability compensation cannot be granted
since it was specifically found that the offending vehicle which is
TATA van was responsible and at fault for causing accident and
the consequent death of the deceased wife. Considering the
submissions of the claimants though it was stated that the
deceased wife was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, since she was
a house wife and also doing tailoring work, her income per
month can be notionally considered at Rs.4,000/- per month.
13. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi and others 2, since the deceased was aged 22 years as on
the date of accident, future prospects @ 40% of the income of
the deceased has to be added which comes to Rs.1,600/-. Then
the total income comes to Rs.5,600/-(4,000 + 40%). The annual
income of the deceased comes to Rs.67,200/-p.a. (5,600 x 12).
Since the dependents are 2 in number (mother and father-in-
law), 1/3 of the income of the deceased i.e. Rs.22,400/-(67,200 x
1/3) has to be deducted towards personal expenses which comes
(2017) 16 SCC 680
to Rs.44,800/- (67,200 - 22,400). Since the deceased is aged 22
years the relevant multiplier is '18' and then the loss of income
due to the death of the deceased comes to Rs.8,06,400/- (44,800
x 18).
14. As per the decision of the Constitutional Bench of Apex
court in case of Pranay Sethi's case, the conventional heads
namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-,
respectively and the same should be enhanced on percentage
basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the
rate of 10%. Then the total consortium granted to mother comes
to Rs.48,400/- (40,000 + 10% for every three years) and Loss of
Estate and funeral expenses comes to Rs.36,300/- (15,000 +
15,000 + Add 10% for every three years).
15. Since appellants 1 and 3 are not dependents on the
deceased (wife), appellants 2 and 5 to 8 (Legal representatives of
appellant No.4) are entitled to a total amount of compensation of
Rs.8,91,100/-(8,06,400 + 48,400 + 36,300).
16. Accordingly, MACMA.No.3060 of 2008 is allowed and the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.54,500/- to Rs.8,91,100/- with interest @ 7.5% on the
enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization
payable by respondents 1 to 3 in the OP to appellants 2, 5 to 8,
only. The amount shall be deposited within 6 weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the
appellant No.2-mother is entitled to 50% of the compensation
and appellants 5 to 8 (L.Rs of appellant No.4 (father-in-law)] are
entitled to equal shares out of the remaining 50% of the
compensation. Appellants 2 and 5 to 8 are permitted to
withdraw their respective shares without furnishing any
security. The claimants have to pay the deficit Court fee or the
Tribunal may deduct the amount required for the purpose of
Court fee from the amount awarded to the claimants after
respondents Insurance Company deposits the amount.
17. The finding of the tribunal regarding refusal to apportion
compensation to the father and sister of the deceased, is
sustained.
MACMA.No.3061 OF 2008
18. As already discussed, the offending vehicle was at fault
which caused accident resulting in death of husband. In the
Court below the claimants filed Exs.A8 and A9 which are IT
assessment orders of the deceased husband for the years 2005-
2006 and 2004-2005 resepctively. Ex.A12-Nowkarnama. As per
Ex.A8, the income of the deceased was Rs.1,05,440/- for the
year 2005-2006 and as per Ex.A9 the income of the deceased
was Rs.98,920/- for the year 2004-2005. Accordingly, the higher
income for the assessment year 2005-2006 can be considered
while granting compensation i.e. Rs.1,05,440/- p.a.
19. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi and others 3, since the deceased-husband was aged 29
years as on the date of accident, future prospects @ 40% of the
income of the deceased has to be added which comes to
Rs.42,176/-. Then the total annual income comes to
Rs.1,47,616/-(1,05,440 + 40%). Since the father is the only
dependent 1/3rd of the income of the deceased i.e. Rs.49,205/--
(1,47,616 x 1/3) has to be deducted towards personal expenses
which comes to Rs.98,411/- (1,47,616 - 49,205). Since the
deceased is aged 29 years the relevant multiplier is '17' and then
the loss of income due to the death of the deceased comes to
Rs.16,72,987/- (98,411 x 17).
(2017) 16 SCC 680
20. As per the decision of the Constitutional Bench of Apex
court in case of Pranay Sethi's case, the conventional heads
namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses
should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-,
respectively and the same should be enhanced on percentage
basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the
rate of 10%. Then the father of the deceased is entitled to
consortium which comes to Rs.48,400/- (40,000 + 10% for every
three years) and Loss of Estate and funeral expenses comes to
Rs.36,300/- (15,000 + 15,000 + Add 10% for every three years).
21. Since appellant is died his legal representatives are entitled
to a total amount of compensation of Rs.17,57,687/-(16,72,987
+ 48,400 + 36,300).
22. Accordingly, MACMA.No.3061 of 2008 is allowed and the
compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.4,53,640/- to Rs.17,57,687/- with interest @ 7.5% on the
enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization
payable by respondents 1 to 3 in the OP to appellants 2 to 5
(legal representatives of the appellant No.1). The amount shall be
deposited within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. On such deposit, the appellants 2 to 5 are entitled to
equal shares and they are permitted to withdraw their respective
shares without furnishing any security. The claimants have to
pay the deficit Court fee or the Tribunal may deduct the amount
required for the purpose of Court fee from the amount awarded
to the claimants after respondents Insurance Company deposits
the amount.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 14.08.2024
tk
