Telangana High Court
Smt. Gaini Anusha vs Gaini Chinna Ramulu on 5 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.633 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Azar Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants-claimants and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company.
2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, vide Award dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Chairman,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,
Nizamabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.304 of 2018, the
present appeal has been filed by the claimants.
3. The appellants are the claimants, respondent No.1 is the owner
and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that on 22.05.2018 at
about 19.00 hours, under the instructions of the respondent No.1, the
deceased-Gaini Pedda Shankar along with other labourers was
bringing the electric cement poles from sub-station, Pothangal check
LNA,J
post, in a tractor bearing registration No.TS-16-EA-9808 and on the
way, after passing the check post of Pothangal village, when the
driver of tractor was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner
at high speed, one RTC bus came from behind and to give side to the
said bus, the driver of the tractor turned the tractor to the side in high
speed, due to which the tractor turned turtle into a canal and the
cement electric poles fell on the deceased, due to which he died on the
spot: The Police registered a case and filed charge sheet before the
Magistrate concerned.
4.1. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was aged 38 years
and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month i.e., earning Rs.10,000/- by
working as labourer under respondent No.1 and also getting
agricultural income of Rs. 10,000/-.
4.2. It was further pleaded that Claimant No.1 is wife, Claimant
Nos.2 to 4 are the children, Claimant No.5 is the mother and Claimant
No.6 is sister of the deceased; and that due to death of the deceased,
they lost love and affection and financial support to the family. Hence,
LNA,J
the claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakhs from respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the offending
vehicle remained ex parte.
6. Respondent No.2-insurer of the offending vehicle filed its
counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was
stated that the offending vehicle is registered only for agriculture and
forestry purposes and should not be used for hire and reward. At the
time of accident, the offending vehicle was used for transportation of
electric poles. Thus, there is a clear violation of terms of the insurance
policy by the owner of the offending vehicle and hence, the insurance
company is not liable to pay compensation. It further stated that the
compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
7. On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues
were framed for trial:
LNA,J
"(1) Whether the accident took place on 22.05.2018 at
about 19.00 hours after passing of check post of Pothangal
village, Pothangal village limits, Nizamabad District,
under the limits of PS Kotgir, Nizamabad District, due to
rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.TS-16-
EA-9808 by its driver causing the death of Gain Pedda
Shankar @ Shankar?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation'? If
so, to what extent and from whom?
3. To what relief?"
8. To substantiate their case, on the claimants' side, P.Ws.1 and 2
were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On the side of
respondent No.2, its Legal Manager was examined as RWI and
Exs.B-1-copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1.
9 The Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and the
material placed on record, came to a conclusion that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its
driver. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.13,64,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal further
LNA,J
directed respondent No.1 to first satisfy the Award and later to recover
the same from respondent No.2.
10. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants is that though the claimants pleaded that the
deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal took the
monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, which is very meager,
and hence, sought this Court to enhance the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
11. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-insurance
company contended that the Tribunal awarded the compensation
based on the evidence and the material available on record and the
same does not require any interference by this Court and sought to
dismiss the appeal.
12.Consideration:-
The claimants pleaded that the deceased was working as
labourer under respondent No.1 and earning Rs.10,000/- per month in
addition to the agricultural income of Rs.10,000/- per month.
LNA,J
Respondent No.1 did not enter into witness box to rebut the pleading
of the claimants that the deceased was working under him. In fact,
respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. In such case,
for quantifying the loss of dependency, having regard to the avocation
of the deceased, the cost of living, inflation, devaluation of rupee, etc.,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the monthly income of the
deceased can be taken at Rs.8,000/- and accordingly, the Award of the
Tribunal insofar as assessing the monthly income of the deceased is
liable to be modified.
13. As regards the age of the deceased, it is evident from record
that he was aged 38 years as on the date of the accident and was self-
employed. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1,
the claimants are entitled to future prospects by addition of 40% of the
income of the deceased, i.e., 40% of Rs.8,000/- comes to Rs.3,200/-.
So, if the said amount of future prospects is added to the monthly
earnings of the deceased, the total earnings of the deceased would be
(2017) 16 SCC 680
LNA,J
Rs.11,200/- per month. As there are six dependents on the deceased, if
1/4th of Rs.11,200/- is deducted towards his personal and living
expenses, his contribution to the family comes to Rs.8,400/- per
month i.e., Rs.1,00,800/- per annum. Having regard the age of the
deceased i.e., 38 years as on the date of the accident, by applying the
ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (cited supra), the appropriate
multiplier to be applied is '15'. Accordingly, under the head of loss of
dependency a sum of Rs.15,12,000/- (Rs.1,00,800/- x 15) is awarded
as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.11,34,000/- towards loss of dependency. Thus, the compensation
towards loss of dependency is enhanced from Rs.11,34,000/- to
Rs.15,12,000/- i.e., it is enhanced by Rs.3,78,000/-.
14. The impugned Award of the Tribunal is revisited only to the
extent of granting compensation towards loss of dependency and the
amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads
holds good.
LNA,J
15. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion and legal
position, this Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned Award, dated
12.01.2023, passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent of
enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,64,000/- to Rs.17,42,000/-.
The above compensation amount of Rs.17,42,000/- shall carry interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of
realization. The appellant shall deposit the said compensation amount
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order, duly adjusting the amount already deposited by it. Respondent
No.2-insurance company is directed to first satisfy the Award and
later recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle i.e.,
respondent No.1 herein. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
05.02.2024
dr
