Telangana High Court

The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad And 1 Other vs M Abid, R.R.Dist And 2 Others on 5 January, 2024

Author: P.Sree Sudha

Bench: P.Sree Sudha

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

         CROSS-OBJECTIONS (SR) No.29839 of 2016

                                IN/AND

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.1711 of 2016


COMMON JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is filed by the Road Transport

Corporation (RTC) against the Order dated 09.11.2015 in

O.P.No.2781 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts

at Hyderabad and disputed the quantum of compensation

awarded by the trial Court and requested the Court to set aside

the Order of the trial Court.

2. The petition vide O.P.No.2781 of 2013 was filed by the

petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the

death of the deceased Smt. Abeda Begum, who died in the

motor vehicle accident occurred on 17.11.2013.

3. The trial Court after considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of

Rs.5,94,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the

date of petition till realization.

4. Parties herein are referred as petitioners and respondent

as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

5. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.11.2013 at about

10:00 AM, while Smt. Abeda Begum was riding as a pillion rider

on a scooter proceeding from Antharam village to Shivareddypet

village, when reached Godamguda road i.e., outskirts of

Vikarabad, the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-4531

came with high speed and negligent manner and hit the scooter

from backside, as a result the deceased sustained grievous

injuries and she was shifted to Government Civil Hospital,

Vikarabad, where doctor declared her dead. The deceased was

hale and healthy house wife -cum-tailor aged 26 years old and

used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month. She is the sole earning

member of the family and used to contribute her entire income

for the maintenance of the family. Due to her sudden death, the

petitioners are suffering financial imbalance and they have

incurred huge expenditure towards transportation and funeral

and the first petitioner has lost consortium.

6. The husband of the deceased examined himself as P.W.1

and got examined P.W.2, eye witness and P.W.3 and marked

Exs.A1 to A6 on their behalf and no oral or documentary

evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent/RTC.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents filed X-objections in

S.R.No.29839 of 2016. Today, when the matter is called,

learned counsel for the respondents requested the Court to

withdraw the same. Permission as sought for is granted.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondents mainly

contended that the deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- per month

by doing tailoring work, and evidence was also adduced to that

effect by examining PW-3 but, the learned trial Court erred in

taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-.

Therefore, requested this Court to modify the order of the Trial

Court.

9. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire

evidence on record.

10. In the counter filed by the RTC, it was specifically stated

that the accident was occurred only due to the gross negligence

of the deceased and the driver of the RTC bus is not at fault.

11. Through P.W.1, Ex.A1 is C.C. of FIR, Ex.A2 is charge

sheet and Ex.A3 is Inquiry report were filed to prove the

accident was occurred due to negligence of RTC bus driver. By

taking into account, Exs.A-1 to A-3, the Trial Court came to a

conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence of the

bus driver.

12. With regard to the age of the deceased, the petitioners did

not file any document. There remains only Ex.A-1 F.I.R., Ex.A-2

Charge sheet, Ex.A-3 Inquest Report and ex.A-4 Postmortem

examination report, wherein the age of the deceased was noted

as 26 years; as such she was aged 26 years at the time of the

accident.

13. While coming to the earning capacity of the deceased at

the time of her death, learned counsel for the respondents relied

on a decision of Honble Apex Court between SHIV KUMAR &

OTHERS Vs. GAINDA LAL & OTHERS 1 wherein it is held as

under:

"...Held, at the relevant time the deceased was a housewife aged 25 years only and there was contribution of the wife in the family and there is evidence that she was also doing the tuition work, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have considered the income of the deceased at least Rs.7,500/- per month. The High Court has also not considered the future prospects. As per the settled position of law while considering the loss of dependency 40% of the income is required to be added towards future prospects, present appeal is allowed...".

14. The learned counsel for the respondents relying on the

above decision of the Hon'ble Apex court submitted that the

deceased is entitled to Rs.7,500/- per month. At this juncture,

2022 Law Suit (SC) 1271

learned counsel for the appellant/RTC vehemently opposed the

same and consented to fix the monthly income of the deceased

at Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, monthly income of the

deceased at the time of her death is fixed at Rs.6,000/-.

15. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in dictum

of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2 the

dependants are three in number, 1/3rd of her income has to be

deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the annual income

of the deceased after deducting personal expenses comes to

Rs.48,000/- per annum and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi 3, held that the future prospects of income of the self-

employed deceased shall also be included in determination of

the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased,

40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects

and thus the amount would become Rs.67,200/-. This sum if

multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of the

deceased i.e.17, it would come to Rs.11,42,400/-. Thus, the

respondents are entitled to Rs.11,42,000/- under the head

'Loss of Dependency'.

(2009) 6 SCC 121

(2017) 16 SCC 680

16. Besides, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are also entitled for

compensation under 'conventional heads' as prescribed in the

dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi, i.e., Rs.15,000/- towards loss of Estate and Rs.15,000/-

towards funeral charges.

17 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reiterating the

comprehensive interpretation of 'consortium' given in the

authority of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs.

Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & others 4, and in the authority

between United India Insurance Company Limited vs.

Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 5, fortified that

the amounts for loss of consortium shall be awarded to the

children who lose the care and protection of their parents as

'parental consortium' and to the parents as, 'filial consortium'

for the loss of their grown-up children, to compensate their

agony, love and affection, care and companionship of deceased

children. Accordingly, it is just and reasonable to award

Rs.40,000/- to petitioner No.1 towards spousal consortium and

Rs.40,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 towards filial

consortium.

(2018) 18 SCC 130

(2020) 9 SCC 644

18. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for the

compensation amount in the following terms:

1. Loss of dependency Rs.11,42,400/-

2. Conventional heads Rs.30,000/-

3. Spousal Consortium Rs.40,000/-

                  Filial Consortium                      Rs.80,000/-

                    TOTAL                            Rs.12,92,400/-

19. In the result, the appeal filed by RTC, i.e., M.A.C.M.A.

No.1711 of 2016 is disposed of by enhancing the compensation

granted by the trial Court from Rs.5,94,000/- to

Rs.12,92,400/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs ninety two thousand and

four hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum

from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization.

Respondent/RTC is directed to deposit the entire amount

within a period of one month from the date of this

Judgment.

20. On such deposit, Rs.4,00,000/- each is apportioned

to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Since respondent Nos.2 and 3

are minors as on the date of filing of M.V.O.P.No.2781 of

2013, they are permitted to withdraw the amount

apportioned to them, on attaining the majority. Till the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 attains majority, their

apportioned amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any

nationalized bank.

21. Respondent No.1 being the husband of deceased is