Telangana High Court

Katukojula Shoba And 3 Ors vs N.Laxman And 2 Ors on 19 February, 2024

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                M.A.C.M.A. No.1934 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved

by the order, dated 11.03.2008, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1021 of

2004 by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal

District Court) at Warangal (for short, the Tribunal) refusing to

grant the compensation of Rs.20 lakhs as claimed on the death

of the deceased, who is the husband of first appellant, father of

second and third appellants and son of fourth appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case of claimants is that on 02.05.2004 at

about 2.00 p.m., while the deceased was returning to his house

and when he reached near Sumangali Function hall, the driver

of Jeep bearing No.AP-36V -7647, drove in a rash and negligent

manner and hit the deceased. Resultantly, the deceased received

injuries on his head and all over the body and fell in the

drainage by the side of the road on account of the impact by the

Jeep. Immediately, he was shifted to NIMS hospital, while

undergoing treatment, the deceased died.

3. The son of the deceased i.e, 4th appellant filed criminal

complaint, which was registered by the Panjagutta Police as

Cr.No.475 of 2004 in which the description of the vehicle that

caused in the accident was not given.

4. The Police registered the crime and filed charge sheet

against the Jeep driver. According to the charge sheet, the

vehicle was identified on account of the evidence given by two

witnesses who were present at the scene.

5. The appellants are before this Court on the ground that the

Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and

refused to grant compensation. Learned counsel for the

appellants would submit that the findings of the Tribunal that

the deceased was intoxicated and fell into drainage is negatived

by the injuries received by the deceased. In the Post mortem

report, the injuries clearly indicate that the deceased was hit by

the vehicle. The delay in identifying the vehicle is no

consequence. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal has to be

reversed and compensation should be granted to the claimants.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

Insurance company would submit nearly 15 days after the

incident, the alleged eye witnesses were examined. No credibility

can be given to the said statements of the witnesses. Considering

the evidence on record, the Tribunal has correctly concluded

that the vehicle was not involved in accident. The deceased was

in intoxicated condition under influence of alcohol, he fell into

drainage and sustained injuries resulting in his death. Even the

charge sheet reflects that the deceased was intoxicated. Both the

wife and son who were examined are not eye witnesses to the

accident. Since, the Tribunal had correctly assessed the evidence

in its correct perceptive, the appeal has to be dismissed.

7. It is admitted that the deceased received the following

injuries:

1. Abrated Lacerations 4x2 on the scalp in the lower occipital region

2. Abrasions of 5x4 on the tip of left shoulder

3. Two lacerated 5x2 and 2x1 both skin deep on the middle of shin

4. Abrasions of 3x2 on the middle of right shin.

5. Contrusions of 1/3rd of the scalp 6x3 on the occipital region, Contrusions of right temporal occipital region, Diffuse sub-acronid hammerage present all over the brain.

8. The deceased had received injuries on the head, shoulders

and both left and right sides of the shin (lower part of the legs)

area. The Tribunal observed that the deceased fell into drainage

and received the said injuries. No reasons are given as to why

the Tribunal had concluded on the basis of the injuries received

that the deceased fell into drainage and received injuries. No

reasons are given by the Tribunal as to how the deceased had

received injuries on both legs in the shin area. Receiving of

injuries on the shin area back side and also head and shoulders

would reflect that in all probability, the deceased was hit by

vehicle in the lower part of the body and he was resultantly

pushed to the side of the road due to impact of the vehicle and

fell into the drainage. It is highly improbable that a drunkard

falling into a drainage would receive the injuries described

above, which are all over the body.

9. Since the injuries received and the evidence of PW-2 who is

eye witness and cited in the charge sheet as LW-6 can be

believed, this court deems it appropriate to set-aside the finding

of the Tribunal that the deceased did not die on account of an

accident and resultantly, the petitioners are entitled to

compensation.

10. Insofar as the deduction towards personal and living

expenses is concerned, the deceased was married and survived

by wife, two children and mother, then total dependents are four.

As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma

and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 1, the

standard deduction towards personal and living expenses of the

deceased should be one-third, where the number of dependent

family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth where the number of

dependent family members is 4 to 6. In the present case, total

dependents of the deceased are four. Therefore, as per the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the

deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased

has to be one-fourth (1/4th).

11. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay

Sethi and others 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 59.3

held that in case the deceased holds permanent job, an addition

of 30% of established income should be awarded towards future

prospects, where the deceased age was 40 to 50 years. In the

present case, since the age of deceased at the time of the

(2009) 6 SCC 121

(2017) 16 SCC 680

accident was 42 years, an addition of 30% of monthly income of

the deceased can be taken towards future prospects.

12. With regard to the multiplier, as per the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra), the multiplier is '14' for

the age groups of 41 to 45. The age of the deceased as on the

date of the accident was 42 years.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in the case of

Anjali and others vs Lokendra Rathod and others 3, decided

on 06.12.2022, taking into consideration the decision of Sarala

Verma (supra) and also the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has

awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The

said enhancement and revision at 10% every 3 years has been

done taking into consideration, raise in the cost of expenses and

cost of living that has arisen during the intervening period from

the date of decisions of Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi.

14. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount

is calculated as under:

2023(1) ALD 107(SC)

Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded

1 Income Rs.1,63,140/- per annum (Rs.13,595/- per month)

2 Future prospects Rs.48,942/- (30% of income)

3 Total income Rs.2,12,082/-


2        Deduction towards personal           Rs.53,020/-     (i.e.,   1/4th   of   total
         expenses                             income )

3        Net Income                           Rs.1,59,062/- (i.e., Rs.2,12,082/- (-)
                                              Rs.53,020/-)



5        Loss of dependency                   Rs.22,26,868/- (i.e., Rs.1,59,062/-
                                              x 14)

6        Consortium (Rs.40,000/- x 4)         Rs.      1,60,000/-

7        Funeral expenses                     Rs.      15,000/-

8        Loss of estate                       Rs.      15,000/-

         Total compensation     to   be       Rs.24,16,868/-
         paid:

15. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.24,16,868/-. The

compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondent

No.2-Insurance Company within a period of two (2) months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The compensation

amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

claim petition till realization. Out of the compensation amount,

appellants/claimants Nos. 1 to 4, who are wife, children and

mother of the deceased are each entitled to 25%. On such

deposit, claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to

costs.