Telangana High Court
Ch.Laxminacharamma And 3 Others vs V.Narsimloo And Another on 16 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
M.A.C.M.A. No.1315 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved
by the Order and Decree dated 08.12.2005 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.311 of 2003 by the Family Court, Secunderabad (for
short, the Court below).
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant No.1 is the
wife and appellant Nos.2 to 4 are the sons of the deceased
Ch.Swamy Rangaiah. On 12.07.2003 at about 1.00 P.M., the
deceased was going on foot and when he reached near
Gandammagudi on N.H. No.9 R.C. Puram, a scooter bearing
No.AP 28E 7969, which was coming in high speed in rash and
negligent manner dashed to the deceased, due to which he fell
down on the road and sustained head injury. The deceased was
admitted in BHEL Hospital on 13.07.2003 and was shifted to
Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, for treatment. The
deceased died while undergoing treatment on 25.07.2003.
Ramchandrapuram Police registered a case in Crime No.168 of
2003 against the rider of the crime vehicle. The deceased was
49 years old working in BHEL and drawing salary of
Rs.14,012/- per month. He was the only earning member of the
family and all the claimants are depending on his income. The
1st respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle and the 2nd
respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle. Hence, both are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The
claimants filed the aforesaid O.P. claiming a compensation of
TA,J
Rs.16,00,000/-, against respondents 1 & 2, the owner and the
insurer of the crime vehicle, for the death of the deceased.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte.
Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the averments of the
claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is
excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. Aggrieved by the same,
the appellants/claimants filed the present appeal, seeking to
grant compensation.
5. Heard.
6. The order passed by the Court below with regard to the
bona fide issue as to whether the accident has taken place due
to rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No.AP 28E
7969 by its rider is negatived by this Court in the light of the
evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness and a co-employee in
BHEL along with the deceased, who categorically stated that it
was the scooter which came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and
sustained head injury and thereafter he died and there is no
other instance to say that the cause of the death is not because
of the scooter accident, but for any other reasons. In the
absence of the same, this Court finds that the cause of death of
the deceased is because of the scooter accident and since the 1st
TA,J
respondent remained ex parte and since the 2nd
respondent/insurance company has already insured the crime
vehicle, the liability falls on the 2nd respondent/insurance
company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.
7. Insofar as computing the compensation is concerned, the
deceased is an employee of BHEL and Ex.A-9 is the pay slip of
the deceased indicating his monthly salary as Rs.14,012/-.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the income of the
deceased as Rs.14,012/- per month. The Tribunal did not grant
any amount towards future prospects. Therefore, the appellants
are entitled to addition of 30% towards future prospects, as per
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi1. Therefore, the monthly
income of the deceased comes to Rs.18,216/- (Rs.14,012/- +
Rs.4,204/-), and after deduction of 1/4th towards personal
expenses of the deceased since there are four family members,
which comes to Rs.13,662/- (Rs.18,216/- - Rs.4,554/- (1/4)),
the annual income comes to Rs.1,63,944/- (Rs.13,662/- x 12
months). The age of the deceased at the time of the accident is
49 years. Therefore, the multiplier for the age of the deceased is
'13' as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Another2. Hence, the
compensation under the head 'loss of income' comes to
Rs.21,31,272/- (Rs.1,63,944/- x 13). Apart from the same, the
appellants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards conventional
2017(6) ALD 170 (SC)
(2009) 6 SCC 121
TA,J
heads, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Therefore, the total compensation
comes to Rs.22,01,272/- (Rs.21,31,272/- + Rs.70,000/-). In
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram
& Others3, appellant Nos.2 to 4, being minor children of the
deceased, are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each under the head of
love and affection. Therefore, the total compensation comes to
Rs.23,51,272/- (Rs.22,01,272/- + Rs.1,50,000/-). Insofar as
the interest is concerned, for the amount awarded by this Court,
interest of 7.5% shall be computed from the date of petition till
realization.
8. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed by granting compensation of Rs.23,51,272/-
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
realisation. As the claimants claimed only Rs.16,00,000/-, they
are directed to deposit deficit Court fee before the Tribunal. No
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
T.AMARNATH GOUD, J
Date: 24th June, 2019
KL
2018 LawSuit (SC) 904
