Telangana High Court
Smt.Dodda Laxmi And 4 Ors vs Sandeep A.Venkhode And Anr on 3 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
MACMA NO.3536 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
01-05-2014 in OP.No.1206 of 2009 on the file of I Addl.
Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum XV Addl. Chief Judge,
Hyderabad, where under their petition for compensation of
Rs.38,00,000/- was partly allowed granting a sum of
Rs.20,39,084/-, the petitioners in the above referred original
petition have filed this miscellaneous appeal under Section
173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act') and sought for
enhancement of the compensation on the following grounds.
2. The appellants have claimed that the Tribunal
have committed an error in considering the Net Pay of the
deceased though they have filed relevant record to show the
deceased was earning Rs.21,250/- per month towards Gross
Salary. The deceased was 45 years at the time of death,
thereby, the Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier '14' but
the Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier '12' and therefore, the
same shall be corrected. The appellants have also claimed
that the Tribunal deducted an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards
2 SSRN, J
Income Tax without considering the actual tax during the year
2008-2009. Therefore, the appellants sought for
enhancement of the compensation from Rs.20,39,084/- to
Rs.38,00,000/-.
3. As could be seen from the impugned judgment,
the appellants are wife, children and parents of one
D.Venkateshwar Reddy (herein after will be referred as
'deceased'). On 04-03-2009, the deceased was proceeding
on his Scooter towards M/s Virchow Laboratory, Industrial
Development Area, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, and when he
reached Khaisar T Junction, the driver of a Goods vehicle
bearing No.MH 40 6436 which was coming in the opposite
direction, drove the van in high-speed, in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the scooter of the deceased, due to which
he received grievous injuries. Even though he was shifted to
Gandhi hospital, Doctors declared him brought dead. The
appellants have filed petition against the owner and insurer of
the above referred vehicle and sought for a sum of
Rs.38,00,000/-. The first respondent remained ex parte,
whereas, the insurance company i.e., respondent No.2 filed a
counter denying the material averments made by the
appellants herein and put the appellants to strict proof of
3 SSRN, J
averments made in their petition. On the basis of the rival
contentions, the Tribunal framed three issues:
1. Whether the accident occurred on 04-03-2009 at about
8.00 a.m., at Kaisarnagar T Junction, Bouroumpet,
Qutbullahpur, resulting death of Sri D.Venkateshwar
Reddy? If so, whether the said accident does not occur
due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Van
Goods Carriage bearing No.MH 40 6436 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
4. During the enquiry, the appellants herein have
examined four witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A6 and also
Exs.X1 to X6. The second respondent did not examine any
witnesses but filed and marked the copy of insurance policy
issued against the Van as Ex.B1. The Tribunal having
appreciated the pleadings and oral and documentary
evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
above referred Van and allowed the petition in part by
awarding a sum of Rs.20,39,084/- with a specific direction for
the apportionment to the wife, children and parents of the
deceased.
5. Heard both parties.
4 SSRN, J
6. Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the Tribunal was wrong in awarding a sum of
Rs.20,39,084/- and whether the appellants are able to produce
sufficient evidence for enhancement of the compensation?
7. Since the findings arrived at by the Tribunal with
regard to rash and negligent driving by the Van driver and
about the cause of accident and death of the deceased are not
challenged by the second respondent-insurance company,
said findings became final. The present appeal has been filed
by the appellants on the ground that the Tribunal failed to
consider the actual income of the deceased. The learned
counsel for the appellants has submitted that though the
appellants have filed the relevant record including the salary
certificate, pay-slip vide Exs.X1 to X6, the Court below was
wrong in considering the Net Pay of the deceased for
calculating the loss of income. As could be seen from the
evidence of PW.1 and Exs.X1 to X6, it seems the Gross Pay of
the deceased was Rs.21,250/- and after deductions which is
nothing but contribution towards provident fund etc., the Net
Pay of the deceased was Rs.14,595/-. But the fact remains
that the deceased earned Rs.21,250/- per month, even if
5 SSRN, J
some of the said income was deducted towards his
contribution, provident fund is nothing but his earnings,
thereby, the Tribunal ought to have considered the Gross Pay
of the deceased for calculating the compensation.
8. The post-mortem report clearly shows that the
deceased was 46 years as on the date of the death, thereby,
the appellants can claim 25% of the admitted income of the
deceased towards future prospects. Therefore, as rightly
argued by the learned counsel, the total annual income of the
deceased could be Rs.26,437/- (Rs.21,250/- + Rs.5,287/-)
since there are five family members, 1/4th of the said income
should be deducted towards personal expenditure, thereby,
out of the monthly income of the deceased, a sum of
Rs.6,609/- should be deducted. Therefore, the average
monthly contribution of the deceased could be Rs.19,828/-
and annual income is Rs.2,27,938/-.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants has
furnished the details of Income Tax at the relevant period.
The Court below without considering the probable savings of
the deceased, straight away deducted a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards the Income Tax. In fact, as per the Income Tax Rate
during 2010-2011, there were was an exemption on tax up to
6 SSRN, J
Rs.1,60,000/- and as per the calculations furnished by the
learned counsel, the maximum tax that could be imposed is
Rs.7,793/-. This particular figure was not disputed by the
learned counsel for the respondents. If the said amount is
deducted from the annual income, the average annual
contribution of the deceased would be Rs.2,30,145/- and if it
is multiplied by '13', the total loss of dependency is
Rs.29,91,885/- (Rs.2,30,145/- X 13). The appellants are also
entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses). Therefore, the appeal deserves to
be allowed.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The
compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.20,39,084/- to
Rs.30,61,885/-.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are
closed. No costs.
________________________
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J
3rd January, 2024.
PLV
