Telangana High Court
Alludu Pushpa vs V.Mallaiah And Anr on 29 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.1000 OF 2011
&
M.A.C.M.A.No.1757 OF 2012
COMMON JUDMENT:
1. M.A.C.M.A.No.1757 of 2012 is filed by the appellant-
claimant on behalf of the deceased against the Order and Decree
dated 25.10.2010 in O.P.No.322 of 2009 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-IX Additional District and Sessions
Judge, at Kamareddy, where under the Tribunal granted an
amount of Rs.1,87,000/- towards compensation along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/-
on account of the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle
accident occurred on 19.06.2007. MACMA.No.1000 of 2011 is
filed by the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance Company
questioning the said 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 claimant, who is the mother of the deceased
is that on 19.06.2007 while her son was returning from college, a
tractor came in a high speed and dashed against him resulting in
his death.
5. The main ground urged by the learned counsel appearing for
the Insurance Company is that the driver of the tractor was not
holding commercial license to drive the tractor, however, he has
license for driving light motor vehicles which are non-commercial
vehicles. The said ground cannot be taken into consideration to
refused compensation. The Tribunal has given adequate reason to
dispel the argument by the Insurance Company. Though Ex.B.2
license was produced, it did not have the photograph of driver and
the Insurance Company had not placed any other evidence to
support their contention that the driver was not holding a valid
license.
6. The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/-p.a., though it was claimed that he was earning
Rs.6,000/-p.m. Though no proof of income of the deceased was
filed, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa vs. The Manager, Royal Sundaram,
Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the income of the
(2011) 13 SCC 236
deceased can be fixed at Rs.4,500/- per month notionally. Apart
from the same, the appellant is entitled to addition of 40% towards
future prospects which comes to Rs.6,300/-(4,500/-+1,800/-), as
per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2. Accordingly, the income
of the deceased comes to Rs.75,600/- per annum and after
deduction of 50% towards his personal expenses, the annual
income comes to Rs.37,800/- (Rs.75,600/-37,800/-). As per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation 3, the appropriate multiplier is '16'
as the deceased was aged 21 years. Accordingly, when applied
appropriate multiplier '18', it comes to Rs.6,80,400/-(37,800x18).
The claimant is also entitled for Rs.84,000/- under conventional
heads, which comes to Rs.7,64,400/- (6,80,400/-+84,000/-).
7. In the result, the MACMA.No.1757 of 2012 is partly allowed
enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.1,87,000/- to Rs.7,64,400/-. The enhanced amount shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization. Except the above, the award of the Tribunal
shall remain same on all other aspects.
2017(6) ALD 170 (SC)
2009(6) SCC 121
8. Insofar as MACMA.No.1000 of 2011 is concerned, in view of
findings in MACMA.No.1757 of 2012 filed by the claimant, I do not
find any valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the
Tribunal. Accordingly, MACMA.No.1000 of 2011 filed by the
Insurance Company is dismissed.
9. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 29.02.2024
dv
