Telangana High Court
Mettu Vasantha vs Megavath Santosh on 12 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
MACMA NO.778 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20-11-2017 in
MVOP.No.1154 of 2015 on the file of Principal Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT') cum Principal District
Judge, Warangal, where under, their petition for
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of Mettu
Vidya Sagar in a road traffic accident was partly allowed by
granting sum of Rs.6,34,800/- as compensation, the
petitioners in the said MVOP have filed this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short
'M.V. Act') and prayed for enhancement of the compensation
on the following grounds.
2. The tribunal while appreciating the evidence
placed before the Court failed to consider the actual income of
the deceased and wrongly assessed the income as Rs.4,000/-
per month. The petitioners having cited judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court between the 'Shiva Kumar M. Vs.
2 SSRN, J
BMTC' 1 have claimed that the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to observe that in case of a painter, his monthly
income can be fixed at Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/- and in
view of the age of the deceased, an additional amount @ 40%
of the said income can be added towards future prospects.
In such a case, the appellants herein were entitled to more
than Rs.24 Lakhs. They have also claimed that the tribunal
did not award an appropriate amount of compensation for loss
of love and affection, thereby, sought for enhancement of the
compensation. In support of their contentions, the appellants
sought to rely on various judgments, which will be discussed
at appropriate stage in the present appeal.
3. As could be seen from the impugned order, the
appellants herein have filed the petition before the tribunal
under Section 166 (1)(c) of M.V.Act on the ground that on
03-06-2015, the deceased after attending Church at
Karunapuram Village, returned to his house in a Bus and
when they reached Vigneshwara Granite at about
10.00 a.m., the driver of a Bore Well Lorry bearing No.AP
15N 4446 by driving it in a high speed, in a rash and
2017 (5) SCC 79
3 SSRN, J
negligent manner dashed the deceased, thereby, he received
fatal injuries and died on the spot. The appellants herein
have filed the petition against the driver, owner and insurer of
the offending vehicle and sought for Rs.10,00,000/- as
compensation.
4. Out of the three respondents, the driver and
owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent -
Insurance Company opposed the claim by contending that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and
the claim made by the appellants herein was highly excessive
and exorbitant, as such, they prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
5. The tribunal has framed the following three
issues:
1. Whether on 03-06-2015 at about 10.00 hours near
Vigneshwara Granite, Karunapuram Village, Ghanpur (W)
Mandal, Warangal District, the driver of the Bore Well Lorry
bearing No.AP 15N 4446, drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and caused accident, resulting in death of
the deceased Mettu Vidya Sagar?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so,
at what relief?
3. To what relief?
4 SSRN, J
6. During the enquiry, the first appellant
herein/petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1, Exs.A1 to A5
were marked on behalf of the appellants. No oral evidence
was adduced by the 3rd respondent but copy of the policy
issued against the above said Lorry was marked as Ex.B1. The
tribunal having appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence, accepted the contentions of the appellants that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the
driver of offending vehicle and without accepting the claim of
appellants that the deceased was earning Rs.16,000/- per
month on a hypothetical assessment, considered the income
of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month and having added
40% of the said income towards future prospects and after
deducting 50% of the income towards personal expenditure of
the deceased, who was a bachelor awarded an amount of
Rs.6,04,800/- as compensation under the head of loss of
dependency, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
7. The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company did not
file any objections against the findings of the tribunal with
regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
5 SSRN, J
offending vehicle and about the quantum of compensation and
liability of the Insurance Company. Whereas, the
petitioners/claimants have filed this appeal mainly on the
ground that the tribunal has considered meager amount of
income without considering the settled legal position.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants while
placing reliance on a judgment in 'Shiva Kumar M. Vs. BMTC'
supra, argued that there is evidence before the Court to
believe that the deceased was a painter. In the above referred
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe
that income of a 45 year old House painter can be assessed
as Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/-. Therefore, the appellants are
entitled to enhanced compensation. The learned counsel has
further argued that the tribunal did not award appropriate
sum under the head of loss of consortium. Therefore, sought
for enhancement.
9. As could be seen from the impugned order, it is
quite clear that the appellants herein could not produce any
proof about the actual income of the deceased. However, as
per the findings recorded by the tribunal and as per the other
record including inquest report marked as Ex.A2, the
6 SSRN, J
occupation of the deceased was mentioned as painter. The
accident in which the deceased was died on 03-06-2015 was
not disputed.
10. In the above referred judgment relied on by the
appellants herein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while disposing an
appeal preferred by the claimants on an insurance OP, was
pleased to observe that a casual worker, who goes from
house to house and place to place doing his painting work
could not produce any evidence of the actual income, since
there may not be any employer, and as he does daily work
sometimes, piece- rated work as well. In the absence of any
serious dispute on the part of the respondent, the avocation
and income, the Hon'ble Apex Court assessed the income of
such a painter @ 15,000/- per month. The accident in the
above referred case was in 2013. Whereas, in the present
case, the death of the deceased was in 2015. Even if it is
considered that the deceased was working in a town like
Karunapuram and if 50% of the above referred income is
considered, definitely, it would be Rs.8,000/- per month and if
40% of the said income is added as future prospects, it would
be Rs.11,200/- per month and Rs.1,34,400/- per month. If
7 SSRN, J
50% of the said income is deducted towards the personal
expenditure, the annual contribution of the deceased could be
Rs.67,200/-. Since the deceased was 27 years at the time of
his death, the appropriate multiplier is '18' and it amounts to
Rs.12,09,600/-. In addition to the said amount, the claimants
are entitled to an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of
consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore,
the appellants are entitled to Rs.12,79,600/-.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.6,34,800/- to
Rs.12,79,600/- @ 7% per annum from the date of accident till
the entire amount is realized.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are
closed. No costs.
________________________
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J
12th March, 2024
PLV
