Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 692 Tel
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A Nos.991 OF 2015 & 3253 OF 2014
COMMON JUDMENT:
1. MACMA.No.991 of 2015 is filed by the appellants-
claimants on behalf of the deceased against the Order and
Decree dated 10.06.2013 in O.P.No.2285 of 2010 on the file
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-II Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where under the
Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.14,55,000/- towards
compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as
against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of the death
of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident occurred on
18.06.2010. MACMA.No.3253 of 2014 is filed by the 2nd
respondent-Insurance Company questioning the
compensation granted by the Tribunal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the claimants and learned
counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused
the record.
3. Since both the appeals are filed on the very same
findings of the Tribunal, both are heard together and
disposed off by way of this common order.
4. The case of the deceased is that while he was traveling
to Kurnool in Tavera Chevrolet vehicle bearing No.AP-9BG-
7208 driven by one U.Subrahmanyam, when the said vehicle
reached Manopad, the driver of the said vehicle drove in a
rash and negligent manner at a high speed and lost control of
the vehicle, resulting in the vehicle turning turtle and
consequently the death of the deceased after having received
injuries.
5. The claim was made on the ground that the deceased
was earning Rs.20,000/-p.m. In proof of income, letters
issued by the private persons certifying that their children
were being taken in the Omni vehicle of the deceased to the
school and getting them back, for which reason, they were
paying different amounts were filed. Exs.A-8 to A-12 are the
said letters. Insofar as certificate under Ex.A-10 is
concerned, the witness was examined as P.W.3 who was
working as head constable in Intelligence Department. He
stated that his two children were being taken by the deceased
and brought back from school and an amount of Rs.4,000/-
was being paid. Though the claim of income of Rs.20,000/-
was made before the Tribunal, the Tribunal calculated the
income at Rs.10,000.-
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
would submit that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger
in the Tavera vehicle and his claim for compensation cannot
be considered since the policy was not taken for the said
passengers in the vehicle. The only reason given by the
learned counsel is that addresses of the driver and the
deceased were different. Only on the basis of different
addresses, it cannot be said that the deceased was a
gratuitous passenger in the said vehicle. The said ground
raised is not accepted.
7. Insofar as future prospects and multiplier is concerned,
the Tribunal had taken the multiplier as '16', however, the
multiplier should be '17' in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation 1. Further, in view of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.
2009(6) SCC 121
Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, 40% has to be considered towards future
prospects.
8. Thus, the appellant is entitled to 40% on the income of the
deceased towards future prospects (Rs.14,000+33600) which
comes to Rs.1,68,000/-(Rs.14,000x12). Deduction of 1/4th
towards his personal expenses comes to Rs.1,26,000/-
(Rs.1,68,000-42,000(1,68,000x1/4)). Applying appropriate
multiplier '17', it comes to Rs.21,42,000/-(1,26,000x17).
9. The compensation is accordingly enhanced under
various heads as follows:
Awarded by Awarded by
Sl.No. Name of Head Tribunal this Court
01. Loss of future Rs.14,40,000/- Rs.21,42,000/-
income with
future prospects
02. Loss of Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,64,000/-
consortium (6
claimants)
03. Loss of estate & Rs.10,000/- Rs.36,300/-
funeral expenses
Rs.14,55,000/- Rs.24,42,300/-
TOTAL
10. In the result, the MACMA.No.991 of 2015 is allowed
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.14,55,000/- to Rs.24,42,300/-. The
2017(6) ALD 170 (SC)
enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum.
The appellants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount
of compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee.
11. During the pendency of the appeal, claimant No.6
died. In the said circumstances, the wife of the deceased
would be entitled for the share of claimant No.6. Except
this, the award of the Tribunal shall remain same on all other
aspects.
12. Insofar as MACMA.No.3253 of 2014 is concerned, in
view of findings in MACMA.No.991 of 2015 filed by the
claimants, I do not find any valid grounds to interfere with
the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, MACMA.No.3253 of
2014 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.
13. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. No costs.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 19.02.2024 dv
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!