Telangana High Court
Ernam Anjaiah , Hyd And 2 Others vs Sadaveni Srinivas, Hyd And Another on 29 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A.No.565 OF 2017
JUDGMENT :
This appeal has been filed by the appellants who are
petitioners in M.V.O.P.No.621 of 2012 on the file of learned XI
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the
Court below'). Being aggrieved by the order in the above referred
M.V.O.P, dated 08.12.2016 whereunder, the Court below allowed
their petition in part and granted a sum of Rs.9,39,000/- with
simple interest @7.5%, the claimants/petitioners in the said
M.V.O.P.621 of 2012 have filed this appeal under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicle Act, (for short 'M.V. Act') and sought for
enhancement of the compensation on the following grounds:
2. The Court below committed a grave error in awarding a
meager amount of Rs.9,39,000/- against their claim for
Rs.15,00,000/-. The Court below committed an error by
considering the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- as if he is a
skilled labour in spite of fact that he was pursuing B.Tech in Pulla
Reddy Engineering College. The Court below failed to appreciate
the judgments relied upon by the appellants and did not accept
their claim that the notional income of the deceased can be
considered as Rs.12,000/- per month, since he was an
Engineering graduate, but awarded the compensation by simply
considering him as a skilled labour, thereby, they sought for
enhancement of the compensation. They have also claimed that
the Court below could have considered the claim that had there
been if no such accident, he could have completed his graduation
and he could have proceeded to U.S.A for higher studies and he
could have secured a good job through which he could earn
Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per month.
3. As per the brief case of the petition filed by the appellants
herein before the Court below, it appears that the appellant Nos. 1
and 2 are the parents and appellant No.3 is the younger sister of
one Sri Ernam Abhishek Kumar (hereinafter referred to as
'deceased'), he was pursuing his Engineering graduation in Pulla
Reddy Engineering College. On 05.12.2011, he along with his
classmates, Sri Garapati Jitendra Chowdary and Sri Vinod Kumar
proceeding from Hyderabad to Wargal on bike, the deceased was
the pillion rider of the bike and said Jitendra Chowdary was riding
the same. When the bike reached CVR college bus stop, the driver
of Indigo car bearing No. AP-15C-1819 which was proceeding from
Turkapally village to Hyderabad, by driving the car with high
speed in a rash and negligent manner and by going towards
extreme right side of the road, dashed the bike on which the
deceased and his friends were proceedings.
4. In view of the accident, the deceased and his friends received
grievous injuries, even though they were shifted to hospital, the
rider of the bike Jitendra Chowdary died on the way to hospital,
whereas the deceased who was immediately shifted to Gurunanak
Care Hospital, Musheerabad from which he was taken to Gandhi
Hospital succumbed to the head injury on 10.12.2011. The
appellants herein claimed that they have spent Rs.2,50,000/- for
treatment and other incidental charges. On the basis of complaint
lodged by the rider of the bike, a case in Crime No.307 of 2011
under Sections 304-(A) and 337 of IPC was registered against the
driver of the Indigo Car and subsequently, the Police have filed
charge sheet against him.
5. The appellants have claimed that at the time of accident the
deceased was 19 years 11 months, he was pursuing 3rd year
Engineering in Pulla Reddy Engineering College. He was the only
male child to his parents, if there was no such accident, he could
have completed his graduation in Engineering and he would be
bread winner of the entire family, thereby, the appellants have
claimed a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as compensation.
6. The owner and insurer of the above referred car who were
shown as respondent Nos.1 and 2 have opposed the claim, they
filed a separate counters. The Court below has framed the
following three issues for trial.
i. Whether the accident took place on 05.12.2011 due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of Indigo Car No.AP-15-
AC-1819 causing death of the deceased?
ii Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom?
iii.To what relief?
7. During enquiry, the father of the deceased was examined as
PW-1 and another rider of the bike G. Vinod Kumar was examined
as PW-2 and they have examined one more witness as PW-3,
Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on behalf of the appellants herein. The
respondent/insurance company has examined RW-1 and marked
Exs.B1 and B2. The Court below having appreciated the pleadings
and also evidence having held that the accident took place due to
the rash and negligent driving by the driver of above referred
Indigo car, allowed the petition in part, however in spite of the
clear claim by the appellants about the education and other issues
of the deceased considered the expected income of the deceased as
Rs.5,000/- treating him as a skilled labour and allowed the
petition in part granting a sum of Rs.9,39,000/-.
8. Heard both parties.
9. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the Court below committed any wrong in assessing the
expected income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-, thereby, awarded
low compensation? if so, whether the request of the appellants
herein can be allowed to increase the compensation, whether the
appellants are entitled to Rs.15,00,000/- as prayed for?.
10. There is no serious dispute about the accident in which the
deceased died. The evidence placed by PW-1 and PW2 and other
documents marked as Ex.A1 to A5 i.e. certified copies of FIR,
charge sheet, PME report etc clearly shows that when the
deceased and his two friends were proceedings towards their
college they met with accident when the above referred Indigo car
dashed their bike. The record further shows that rider of the bike
died on the same day whereas the deceased herein who was
admitted in Gandhi Hospital succumbed to head injury after five
days of the accident.
11. As per the oral evidence of the witnesses and other
records, it clearly shows that the deceased was a 3rd year
Engineering student pursuing his graduation at Pulla Reddy
Engineering college Wargal. The deceased was the only son of the
appellants herein, the appellants have claimed that the deceased
was a merit student and if there was no such accident, he could
have completed his graduation and he would be the only earning
member of the family. Ex.A6 is the original Board of Secondary
Education Certificate which goes to show that the deceased passed
his 10th class in first class. As per the date of birth mentioned in
Ex.A6, the deceased was aged about 19 years. It may be true that
the deceased was not an employee, but he was only a student,
however the other records placed by the appellants clearly
indicates that he has completed his 2nd semester by the time of
accident. As rightly contended by the appellants, had there been
no such accident, he could have certainly completed his
graduation. The Court below without considering this particular
aspect, only on the ground that the deceased did not complete the
graduation treated him as if he is a skilled labour for assessing the
monthly income @Rs.5,000/-.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on
judgment of erstwhile Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in
B.Ramulamma and others Vs. Venkatesh Bus Union and
another 1 for the proposition that in case of the final year
Engineering student, the Court can assess the income of the
1 2011 ACJ 1702
deceased based on the earnings of his classmates and it would be
appropriate, reasonable and rational to take the minimum basic or
salary at entry level fixed by Government to such jobs as basis for
determining the income of the deceased. In this judgment the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh having considered the
deceased was a final year B.E student with computers assessed
the expected income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month. In
the said above referred case, the deceased was doing his B.E with
computers. In the same judgment, it was also referred that even a
class-IV employee is able to earn Rs.7,000/- to 10,000/- per
month depending upon his service and a Junior Assistant is able
to earn Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Here, the deceased
who was a meritorious student and who was in 3rd year
Engineering, if he could have completed his graduation and as
rightly claimed by the appellants could have earned handful
salary.
13. The appellants have also referred other judgment of the
erstwhile Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in N.Surendra Rao
Vs. B.Swamy 2 wherein High Court considered the income of an
Engineering graduate as Rs.12,000/- per month, but deducted
50% of his income towards his personal expenditure.
2 2014 ACJ 2613
14. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about the
contention of the appellants that the deceased was doing 3rd year
Engineering B.Tech in Pulla Reddy Engineering college. He was 19
years old at the time of accident. If really there was no such
accident, he could have completed the graduation, even if, he
joined a job based on the Engineering qualification, he could have
earned at least Rs.12,000/- per month as a starting income which
could be increased during the course of time. Therefore, the Court
below ought to have considered all these aspects and assessed the
income as Rs.12,000/- per month. There is no dispute that the
deceased was a bachelor, therefore even if 50% of the said income
is deducted still his expected contribution to the family was
Rs.6,000/- per month, Rs.72,000/- per annum and in view of the
age of the deceased being 19, the appropriate multiplier is 18.
Therefore, the appellants are entitled to an amount of
Rs.12,96,000/- and also entitled to amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
under the head of loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses, thereby, they are entitled to amount of Rs.14,21,000/-.
The compensation amount is increased from Rs.9,39,000/- to
Rs.14,21,000/-.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
Date:29.02.2024
ktm
