Telangana High Court
Sampath Rajender vs Abdul Kareem on 13 June, 2024
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
+M.A.C.M.A.No.2058 of 2006
% 16-02-2010
# United India Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Calcutta,
Holding its Office at III Floor, Rallis Building,
16th Hare Street, Calcutta-I, holding its office
at P.K.Lay Out, Tirupati.
..... Appellant
AND
$ 1.N.Santhi and 4 others.
.....Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.T.Mahender Rao
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Mr.P.Jagadish Chandra
Prasad
Counsel for Respondent No.5: None appeared.
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2009) 6 SCC 121
2. 2009 (2) SCC 225
3. (1994) 2 SCC 176
4. (1996) 4 SCC 362
5. (2005) 10 SCC 720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Between:
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Calcutta,
Holding its Office at III Floor, Rallis Building,
16th Hare Street, Calcutta-I, holding its office
at P.K.Lay Out, Tirupati.
..... Appellant
AND
1.N.Santhi and 4 others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.T.Mahender Rao
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Mr.P.Jagadish Chandra
Prasad
Counsel for Respondent No.5: None appeared.
The Court made the following :
Judgment:
This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
arises out of award, dated 30th June, 2006, in
O.P.No.173 of 2003, whereby the Chairman, Motor
Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- III Additional
District Judge, Tirupati (for short 'the Tribunal'), allowed
the claim of the respondents-claimants and fixed
compensation of Rs.3,67,000/-for the death of the
deceased.
The brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of
the Original Petition (for short 'the OP') and the present
Appeal, are as under:
The deceased by name N.Muniraj was riding a
motorcycle of Yamaha Crux make, bearing registration
No.AP 03 L 0188, and P.W.2 was the pillion rider. When
they reached Lanco Bus Stop on Srikalahasti - Tirupati
main road, a tanker, bearing registration No.WB 25 A
3796, came in the opposite direction and hit the
motorcycle, resulting in the instantaneous death of
Muniraj and injuries to the pillion rider (P.W.2). Crime
No.5 of 2003 was registered on the complaint of the
pillion rider. The deceased was 28 years of age at the
time of his death. Respondent No.1- the wife of the
deceased, respondent Nos.2 and 3- his children, and
respondent No.4- his mother, filed the above-mentioned
OP, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The
Tribunal partly allowed the OP and awarded a sum of
Rs.3,67,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.., under various
h e a d s i.e., Rs.3,60,000/- towards loss of income,
Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/-
towards funeral expenses. Feeling aggrieved by the
said award, the United India Insurance Company Limited
(respondent No.2 in the OP) filed the present appeal.
At the hearing Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned
Counsel for the appellant, advanced two contentions
viz., (1) that the appellants failed to produce any proof
that the deceased was employed, and that therefore, the
Tribunal committed an error in holding that the deceased
was earning Rs.2,500/- at the time of his death and; (2)
that the multiplier of 18 adopted by the Tribunal is
contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarala
Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation[1].
According to the learned Counsel for the appellant,
the Tribunal should have discarded the oral evidence of
PW.2 regarding the alleged employment of the deceased
and adopted a multiplier of 17 instead of 18, as the
deceased was aged 28 years as on the date of his
death.
Sri P.Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned Counsel
for the respondents-claimants, submitted that nothing
was elicited from P.W.2 to discredit his testimony that the
deceased was employed under him, and that therefore,
the Tribunal has not committed any error in treating the
deceased as employee of P.W.2 at the time of his death.
The learned Counsel further submitted that as the
judgment in Sarala Verma (1st cited supra) was not
rendered at the time of disposal of the OP, the multiplier
of 18, adopted by the Tribunal, need not be interfered
with.
As regards the first contention of the learned
Counsel for the appellant, P.W.2 is the first informant in
the criminal case, which was registered as Crime No.5 of
2003 on the file of Srikalahasthi Rural Police Station.
The First Information Report (for short 'the FIR') has been
marked as Ex.A.1. A perusal of the FIR shows that
PW.2 had given a statement that he is living by doing
business and that on
26-01-2003, he and his friend Muniraju (the deceased)
were travelling on the motor cycle of Yamaha Crux Make
belonging to Muniraju, when the accident occurred. As
rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the
appellant, PW.2 has not stated in the FIR that the
deceased was employed under him. Had the deceased
been the employee of P.W.2, he would have said so
while making his earliest statement in the form of the
FIR. In the written statement filed by the appellant as
respondent No.2 in the OP, the claim of the respondents-
claimants that the deceased was employed under P.W.2
was specifically denied and the respondents were put to
strict proof of the same. In spite of the said denial, the
respondents failed to adduce any evidence except the
ipse dixit of PW.2. Therefore, I find force in the
submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that
the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased was
working as an employee of PW.2 at the time of his
death. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal, that the
deceased was being paid Rs.2,500/- by P.W.2, cannot
be sustained.
The question then would be what was the income
that the deceased would have been earning at the time
of his death. Unfortunately, except the evidence of
PW.2, no other evidence has been adduced by the
respondents-claimants regarding the income of the
deceased at the time of his death. As held by the
Supreme Court in a plenitude of authorities including its
recent judgment in Syed Basheer Ahmed vs.
Mohd.Jameel and another[2], while assessing the
income of an accident victim, some element of guess
work/estimate will be involved and such estimate should
be fair, reasonable and realistic. The FIR, on which
heavy reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the
appellant to buttress his contention that the deceased
was not employed by PW.2, clearly mentioned that the
deceased and P.W.2 were traveling on the motor cycle
belonging to the former. No effort was made by the
appellant before the Tribunal to show that the motorcycle
did not belong to the deceased. If a person owned a
motorcycle, it is reasonable to presume that he would
have been earning decent income in order to make an
investment for buying it, apart from spending amounts on
its day-to-day maintenance. One cannot imagine that a
person without earning a monthly income of Rs.2,500/-
would have bought the motor cycle and been
maintaining the same. Therefore, in my opinion, taking
the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,500/- by
the Tribunal, albeit, on the strength of a different
reasoning, cannot be said to be erroneous. In this view
of the matter, the multiplicand adopted by the Tribunal,
taking the sum of Rs.2,500/- and deducting 1/3rd
therefrom towards the personal expenses of the
deceased, is not liable to be interfered with. However, I
find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for
the appellant that the Tribunal should have adopted the
multiplier of 17 instead of 18. Even though the judgment,
relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant, in
Sarala Verma (1st cited supra) was rendered
subsequent to the disposal of the OP, in view of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments viz.,
General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas and others[3],
U.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others vs.
Trilok Chandra and others[4] a n d New India
Assurance Company Limited vs. Charlie and
another[5], it is the duty of the Tribunal to arrive at a
proper multiplier.
Having regard to the age of the deceased, in my
opinion, the Tribunal should have adopted the multiplier
of 17 instead of 18. By taking the multiplier of 17, the
loss of future income will come to Rs.3,40,000/-, as
against Rs.3,60,000/- estimated by the Tribunal. As
regards the loss of consortium, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.5,000/-, whereas the Supreme Court has been
consistently adopting the figure of Rs.10,000/-.
For the abovementioned reasons, the award of the
Tribunal is modified to the following extent:
S.No. Description Amount
in Rupees
(1) The loss of income is fixed as ... 3,40,000
(2) T h e loss of consortium is 10,000
enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to ...
(3) T h e funeral expenses, as 2,000
awarded by the Tribunal, stands
confirmed @
Total compensation awarded to 3,52,000
the respondents comes to ...
Subject to the above modification, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of.
___________________________
(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,
J)
16th February, 2010
Note:
LR Copies to be marked.
(B/o)
lur
[1] (2009) 6 SCC 121
[2] 2009 (2) SCC 225
[3] (1994) 2 SCC 176
[4] (1996) 4 SCC 362
[5] (2005) 10 SCC 720
