Telangana High Court
Apsrtc, Rep By Its Managing Director vs T.Srinivas Rao And T.Krishna Kumari on 15 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No.815 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is preferred by the A.P.Road Transport
Corporation questioning the grant of compensation of
Rs.9,56,500/- in O.P.No.238 of 2010 on the file of the Judge,
Family Court-cum-Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, dated
22.08.2012.
2. None appears for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for
respondents 1 & 2/claimants, who are parents of the deceased
and perused the record.
3. The deceased was riding on a motor bike on 13.11.2009 and
when he reached ESI cross roads, one RTC bus bearing No.AP 28
Z 1938 came from behind and ran over him. The deceased died on
the spot. The parents of the deceased filed claim petition for Rs.10
lakhs.
4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record i.e.
PWs.1 to 3, and documents i.e. Exs.A1 to A11, granted
compensation of Rs.9,56,500/- with proportionate costs and
subsequent interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing this
petition till the date of realisation, payable by the respondent.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents/claimants, seeks enhancement of the compensation
granted, though they have not filed any appeal or cross-objections.
6. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Punjab v.
Bakshish Singh 1 and Surekha w/o Rajendra Nakhte and
others v. Santosh s/o.Namdeo Jadhav and others 2, held that
the Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure
that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the
claimants and directed to pay compensation of Rs.49,85,376/- to
the claimants when the High Court found that said amount was
reasonable but declined to grant enhancement merely on the
ground that the appellants had failed to file cross-appeal.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is meagre in
OP.No.238 of 2010, dt.22.08.2012, and claimants are entitled to
enhanced compensation.
7. The deceased was working in Bajaj Alliance Insurance
company. PW3 was the employee of the Bajaj Alliance Insurance
Company and identified the pay slip of the deceased-Ex.A9 and
(1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 222
(2021) 16 SCC 467
deposed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal treated the income of
the deceased as Rs.7,000/- per month after all deductions. The
same can be adopted by this Court for calculating loss of income
due to the death of the deceased. Then the annual income of the
deceased comes to Rs.84,000/- (7000 x 12). In view of the law laid
down by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 3, future
prospects @ 50% of the income of the deceased has to be added
which comes to Rs.1,26,000/-p.a. Since the dependents are 2
members, 1/3rd of the income i.e. Rs.42,000/-(1,26,000x1/3) has
to be deducted towards personal expenses which comes to
Rs.84,000/-p.a.(1,26,000-42,000). As per the Judgment of
Honourable Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra 3) the
relevant multiplier for the age group of 15-20 and 21-25 is '18'
and then the loss of income due to the death of the deceased
comes to Rs.15,12,000/- (84,000 x 18).
8. The compensation granted by the Tribunal towards funeral
expenses and loss of estate is enhanced to Rs.15,000 and 25,000,
respectively. Further, the claimants are granted Rs.48,000/- each
towards parental consortium. In total both the claimants are
(2017 ACJ 2700 = AIR 2017 SC 5157)
entitled to a total compensation of Rs.16,48,000/- towards
compensation.
9. For the reasons stated above and in view of findings by this
Court that the claimants are eligible for enhanced compensation,
the appeal filed by the APSRTC is devoid of merits and
accordingly, dismissed. The compensation granted by the Tribunal
to the claimants is enhanced to Rs.16,48,000/-with interest at
the rate 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of
petition till realization payable by the respondent. 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: 15.02.2024
tk
