Telangana High Court
Jangama Lalitha And 3 Others vs Pm. Palani Swamy And Another on 29 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A Nos.16 of 2010 and 3494 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 04.08.2008 in O.P.No.1275 of
2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII Addl. Dist.
Judge) at Nizamabad, the claimants have filed MACMA No.16 of 2010
for enhancement of the compensation and the Insurance Company has
filed MACMA No.3494 of 2012 questioning the quantum of
compensation awarded.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the very same finding in
O.P.No.1275 of 2002, both the appeals are disposed of by way of
common judgment.
3. Heard Mr. Azar Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the
claimants, Mr. Nisaruddin Ahmed Jeddy, learned counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company and Mr. T. Ramulu, learned counsel
for the respondent/owner of offending vehicle and perused the entire
material on record.
4. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an
amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and the Tribunal has granted compensation of
KS, J
MACMA_16_2010 and
3494_2012
Rs.4,98,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition
till the date of realization.
5. The case of the claimants is that on 15.03.2002 at 11am, while
the deceased along with his brother-in-law was riding the scooter from
Navipet to Veerannagutta Village, near Markendeya temple, a lorry
driven by its driver came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner
and hit the Scooter in opposite direction, as a result of which, the
deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the
hospital. As on the date of accident, the deceased was working as a
toddy tapper and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month.
6 Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the deceased
was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing an
amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the claimants. It is submitted that
the Tribunal had erred in taking the monthly income of Rs.3,500/-. It is
further submitted that the multiplier that was applied by the Tribunal
is '17' instead of '25'. He submits that under the other conventional
heads, the amounts that were granted by the Tribunal were not just
and reasonable.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that
there is no evidence to establish that PW1 is the wife of the deceased
KS, J
MACMA_16_2010 and
3494_2012
and PW1 in her cross examination stated that the deceased was having
own toddy tress and after his death, the said trees were given for lease
and they are receiving income. It is further submitted that the amounts
that were granted by the Tribunal were excessive.
8. The occurrence of accident and death of deceased are not
disputed by the Insurance Company, for which reason, the said aspects
are not discussed. The Insurance Company is aggrieved by the
quantum of compensation granted while the claimants are seeking
enhancement.
9. The Insurance Company had filed the appeal on the ground
that the first claimant is not wife of the deceased. Except stating so,
nothing is elicited by the Insurance Company during the trial before
the Tribunal to prove that that first claimant is not wife of the deceased.
In fact, the two sons and daughter who are claimant Nos.2 to 4 are also
parties to the petition. In the said circumstances, the argument of
learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the first claimant is
not wife of the deceased cannot be accepted.
10. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was workign as
a toddy tapper and was earning an amount of around Rs.10,000/.- per
month. However, the Tribunal concluded that the Income certificate
KS, J
MACMA_16_2010 and
3494_2012
filed under Ex.A6 cannot be believed and accordingly, considered the
income of Rs.3,500/- per month. As per the evidence on record, no
evidence was let in by the claimants in support of the same. However,
in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance 1, wherein,
the income is taken as Rs.4,500/- without there being any evidence, this
court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.4,500/-.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2 has held that while considering the
compensation in cases of death, the future prospects of the self
employed shall also be considered. Having regard to the age of
deceased i.e. 30 years as on the date of accident and occupation as self-
employed, if 40 percent of the income is included as future prospects,
the monthly income would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500+1,800). As per
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v
Delhi Transport Corporation 3, since the dependants are four
members, 1/4th of the income shall be deducted towards personal
expenditure which comes to Rs.1,575/- (Rs.6,300X1/4). Thus the
(2011) 13 SCC 236
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
2009(6) SCC 121
KS, J
MACMA_16_2010 and
3494_2012
annual contribution of the deceased to the claimants would be of
Rs.56,700/- (Rs.4,725X12). As per Schedule II of the Act, the relevant
multiplier for the age of the deceased is '17'. Thus, the compensation
under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,63,900/- (Rs.56,700
X 17).
12. As regards the consortium to be paid, each claimant is entitled
to Rs.40,000/- towards consortium as decided by the Hon'ble Apex
court in case of Pranay Sethi (2 Supra). With regard to the funeral
expenses and loss of estate, the claimants are entitled for Rs.30,000/-.
Apart from that, the claimants are entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards love
and affection.
13. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation as
below:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.9,63,900
(2) Funeral expenses and Rs.30,000
Loss of Estate
(3) Loss of spousal consortium Rs.40,000 for 1st claimant
(4) Loss of filial consortium Rs.1,20,000 for claimant
(5) Love and affection Rs.10,000
KS, J
MACMA_16_2010 and
3494_2012
Total compensation awarded Rs.11,63,900/-
14. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of the
Insurance Company fails and the same is dismissed. However, the
Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal of the claimants is allowed
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.4,98,000/- to Rs.11,63,900/- as hereunder:
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The insuance company shall deposit the amount within a
period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
judgment. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw
entire amount without furnishing any security.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 29.02.2024
gvl
