Telangana High Court
Panthangi Pedda Muthaiah And Anr vs Kathi Subba Rao And 2 Ors on 2 July, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
M.A.C.M.A.NO.3296 OF 2008
Between:
1. Panthangi Pedda Muthaiah S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 55 Years,
Occ: Coolie, R/o. Kothagudem (V), Khammam Urban (M), Khammam
District and another. ...Appellants
AND
1. Kathi Subba Rao S/o. Laxmanaiah, Aged 30 Years, Occ: Driver,
R/o. Dhamsalapuram (V), Khammam Urban (M), Khammam District
and 2 others. ...Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 02.07.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may : Yes/No
be marked to Law Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship wish : Yes/No
to see the fair copy of judgment
_________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.NO.3296 OF 2008
%Dated 02.07.2024
# 1. Panthangi Pedda Muthaiah S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 55 Years,
Occ: Coolie, R/o. Kothagudem (V), Khammam Urban (M),
Khammam District and another. ...Appellants
AND
$ 1. Kathi Subba Rao S/o. Laxmanaiah, Aged 30 Years, Occ: Driver,
R/o. Dhamsalapuram (V), Khammam Urban (M), Khammam District
and 2 others. ...Respondents
! Counsel for Appellants:
1. Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned Counsel.
^ Counsel for Respondents:
1. Karri Murali Krishna, learned counsel.
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A. NO.3296 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the claimants being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
19.08.2005 passed in M.A.T.O.P.No.439 of 2000 by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal II Additional District
Judge, (FTC-1), Khammam (for short 'the Tribunal'),
whereby the Tribunal has refused to grant compensation
on the ground that the deceased was not travelling in
the insured tractor, which is the offending vehicle.
2. The case of the claimants is that, while the
deceased was travelling in the tractor along with paddy
load, the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner, as a result, the deceased
fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died
instantaneously. The deceased was working as
Gumastha and was earning Rs.1,200/- per month as
salary.
3. Charge sheet was filed by the Police against the
driver of the tractor for the offence under Section 304-A
of IPC for causing death by rash and negligent driving.
During the course of trial in the criminal Court, the
witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case,
resulting in acquittal of the driver of the offending
vehicle. On the basis of the said acquittal, the Tribunal
found that the deceased boarded the tractor without the
knowledge of the driver and jumped off the tractor,
resulting in injuries and instantaneous death.
4. It is nobody's case that the deceased had jumped
off the tractor without the knowledge of the driver. The
Tribunal cannot come up with its own narration when it
is not the case of either the claimant or the respondent.
In the said circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal
that the driver of the offending vehicle, which is the
tractor, has not caused the accident and insurer is not
liable to pay compensation is hereby set aside. The
hostility of witnesses in criminal case resulting in
acquittal of driver of offending vehicle cannot form basis
to deny compensation by the Tribunal, when the version
stated before it is convincing and probable.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the
income of the deceased at Rs.1,200/- per month and
accordingly, the compensation has to be granted.
6. Insofar as the deduction towards personal and
living expenses is concerned, the deceased was bachelor
and survived by parents, therefore, total dependents are
two (02). As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another 1 , the standard deduction
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased
should be one-half.
7. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi and others 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph
59.4 held that in case the deceased was self-employed,
additionally 40% of income should be awarded towards
future prospects, where the deceased age was 19 years.
Since the age of the deceased at the time of the
1 (2009) 6 SCC 121
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680
accident was 19 years, 40% of monthly income of the
deceased can be taken towards future prospects.
8. With regard to the multiplier, as per the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (1 supra),
the appropriate multiplier in the present case is '18', as
the deceased age falls under the age groups of 15 to 20.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anjali and others v.
Lokendra Rathod and others 3, decided on 06.12.2022,
taking into consideration the decision of Sarala Verma
(supra) and also the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and
also taking into consideration the rise in expenditure and
cost of living, has awarded a sum of Rs.44,000/-
towards loss of consortium.
10. In view of the above discussion, the compensation
amount is granted as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Income Rs.1,200/- per month
(Rs.14,400/- per annum)
2 Future prospects Rs.5,760/- (40% of income)
3 Total income Rs.20,160/-
4 Deduction towards personal Rs.10,080/-
expenses (i.e., 1/2 of total income )
5 Net Income Rs.10,080/-(i.e.,Rs.20,160/-
(-) Rs.10,080/-)
3 2023(1) ALD 107(SC)
7 Loss Rs.1,81,440/-
of dependency (i.e., Rs.10,080/- x 18)
8 Consortium(Rs.44,000/- x 2) Rs.88,000/-
9 Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
10 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total compensation Rs.2,99,440/-
to be paid:
11. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for the
Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed
only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and the
quantum of compensation which is now awarded would
go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under
law.
12. In view of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and
another 4 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh 5 , the
claimants are entitled to get more amount than what
has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being
a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the
claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts
should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the
4 (2011) 10 SCC 756
5 2003 ACJ 12 (SC)
claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting
compensation amount of Rs.2,99,440/- with interest at
7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date
of realization. The aforesaid amount shall be payable by
the respondents jointly and severally within a period of
two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted
to withdraw the amount equally without furnishing any
security. However, the claimants are directed to deposit
the deficit Court fee, if any. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Date: 02.07.2024
NDS/RRK
