Telangana High Court
Kandukuri Naga Sree vs K. Sridevi on 15 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A. NO.1970 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been preferred by the dissatisfied petitioner
in O.P.No.1118 of 2013 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal.
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act (for short "M.V.Act.") assailing the order dated 05.08.2016 in
the above said MVOP., whereunder the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.8,32,500/- as compensation on account of death of one
Kandukuri Venkanna (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in
a road traffic accident.
2. The appellants have claimed that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate their evidence in proper way and awarded insufficient
compensation without considering actual employment of the
deceased and the amount awarded under the other heads is also
insufficient. The appellants have claimed that the deceased was a
skilled carpenter and worked in different places. He was earning
Rs.25,000/- per month. He was 32 years old at the time of
accident. But, the Tribunal without considering all these aspects,
assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- and
did not add any amount towards other heads. Therefore, the
appellant sought for enhancement of compensation from
Rs.8,32,500/- to Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. As per the material averments made by the appellants
herein in the above referred MVOP, it was claimed that when the
deceased was walking on the road side by pulling his TVS XL
Moped, the driver of Maruti Alto car bearing No.AP-29-AH-7939
which was coming from Warangal and proceeding towards
Hyderabad in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed him, due to which he received fatal injuries and died while
undergoing treatment. The above said M.O.V.P., has been filed
against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The
appellants have claimed that the deceased was a carpenter and
earning Rs.25,000/- per month and sought for a sum of Rs.
10,00,000/-. However, the Court while appreciating the evidence
of the appellants, since they could not file any authenticated proof
about the actual income of the deceased, was of the opinion that
there was no evidence to believe that the deceased was a skilled
carpenter and taking the age of the deceased into consideration
and assessed a minimum amount of Rs.4,500/- per month as
income of the deceased.
4. Learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
while refusing to add any future prospects, held that since the
appellant could not place any evidence to believe that the
deceased was a permanent employee with fixed income, no
amount can be added as future prospects, thereby awarded
Rs.8,32,500/- by adding a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.2,00,000/- as loss of estate and loss of
consortium.
5. It is true the appellants could not produce any
documentary proof about the income of the deceased. However, as
per the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A6, A7 the appellants have
claimed that the deceased was a carpenter, the same was
mentioned in the inquest report. The certificate issued by Vishwa
Bramhana Sangham and identity card proves the actual
occupation of the deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal could have
accepted the same and awarded appropriate compensation. The
Tribunal while discarding the said evidence was of the opinion
that the certificate marked as Ex.A6 and identity card, cannot be
accepted to be authenticated proof about the employment of the
deceased and since the FIR about the accident did not disclose the
occupation of the deceased as carpenter, these documents and
evidence of PWs 2 and 3 cannot be taken into consideration,
thereby awarded the above referred compensation.
6. It is true as per the complaint lodged soon after the
accident, the occupation of the deceased was shown as a coolie. In
fact, the said report was presented by the relatives of the deceased
with a view to inform the police about the accident where a young
man of 32 years suffered fatal injuries and was struggling for life.
The author of complaint may not be having any knowledge as to
the details to be mentioned in the complaint and the FIR need not
be an encyclopedia containing life history of the deceased. The
intention of the author was only to inform the police about the
accident, but not about the age, income, occupation of the
deceased.
7. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 coupled with Ex.A6, A7
shows that the deceased was a carpenter and he was the manager
of the family, consisting himself, wife, children aged about 16 and
12 and also he was maintaining his aged parents. Another
circumstance that is established from the record is by the time of
accident he was pulling his motorcycle towards a petrol pump.
Therefore, these circumstances would suggest that the deceased
was able to maintain himself and his family, consisting (5) other
persons, thereby the Tribunal could have considered the same and
awarded an appropriate compensation amount.
8. As rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant,
such a meager amount of Rs.4,500/- may not be sufficient for a
family consisting (6) persons. Since the accident was occurred in
the year 2013, even if the deceased was considered to be a coolie,
he could have earned Rs.200/- per day and Rs.6,000/- per
month.
9. In view of the Judgment in Sarla Verma vs Delhi
Transport Corporation 1 and National Insurance Company
Limited vs Pranay Sethi 2, even a self employed person if he is
below 40 years, 40% of the established income can be added
towards future prospects. Since the deceased was to maintain,
himself, his aged parents and two teenage children, definitely he
will strive hard to improve the family conditions and his income.
Therefore, if the income of the deceased is considered as
Rs.6,000/- and if 40% is added, it would be Rs.8,400/- per month
and out of Rs.8,400/-, if ¼ of the same is deducted, Rs.6,300/-
per month can be considered as his contribution to the family is
(6300x12) Rs.75,600/- and if it is multiplied by "15" the total loss
(2009) 6 SCC 121
2017 16 SCC 680
of contribution would be (75600X15) Rs.11,34,000/-. The
Tribunal having considered the other aspects, rightly awarded a
sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and loss of consortium.
Even as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's
case, the wife and children would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each
towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.
Therefore, the said compensation need not be disturbed.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The compensation
is enhanced from Rs.8,32,500/- to Rs.12,14,000/- with interest
at 7.5% per annum from the date of suit till the entire amount is
realized. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
DATED 15.03.2024
PSSK
