Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Parsa Mallamma , Mallavva on 21 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
MACMA.NO.2911 of 2019
AND
MACMA.NO.387 OF 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
There are two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals pending
before this Court filed against the judgment and decree in
MVOP.No.38 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge,
Ranga Reddy, who was also acting as Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT'). As could be
seen from the impugned order, the learned Chairman, MACT
while allowing the claim petition filed by the petitioners in the
above O.P. in part awarded a sum of Rs.11,90,000/- towards
compensation on account of death of one Parsa Anjaneyulu
(herein after will be referred as 'deceased') in a road traffic
accident.
2. The petitioners in the said OP.No.38 of 2017
being not happy with the compensation filed MACMA.No.387
of 2021 under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short
'M.V. Act') with a prayer to enhance the compensation from
Rs.11,90,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/-. The 3rd respondent in the
2 SSRN, J
MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and
MACMA.NO.387 of 2021
said O.P. i.e., New India Assurance Insurance Company
Limited has filed another appeal vide MACMA.No.2911 of
2019 under Section 173 of M.V. Act and sought for setting
aside the impugned judgment and exonerate the insurance
company. Since both the appeals are against the same
judgment with different prayers for the sake of convenience,
both the appeals can be disposed under a common judgment.
The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the
original petition.
3. The petitioners No.1 to 3 have filed
MACMA.No.387 of 2021 on the ground that the tribunal failed
to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence while
assessing the income of the deceased and awarded meager
amount of compensation as per the settled principles of law in
various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, more
particularly, judgment in 'Shiv Kumar' 1 case, where in, it
was considered that income of a painter can be fixed at
Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/- per month but in the case on
hand, the deceased who was a vegetable vendor with
agricultural lands, the tribunal failed to appreciate this fact
and assessed his monthly income as Rs.10,000/- per month
2017 (5) SCC Page: 79
3 SSRN, J
MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and
MACMA.NO.387 of 2021
and no appropriate amount was awarded under other heads.
The petitioners have also claimed that the deceased, who was
aged about 45 years with good health, who was working as a
Farm House Supervisor was earning an amount of
Rs.12,000/- per month. Therefore, the same could have been
considered by the tribunal and the petitioners are entitled to
claim 25% of the said income as future prospects, thereby,
sought for enhancement of the compensation.
4. On the other hand, the insurance company while
filing the other appeal under MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 has
claimed that the tribunal having held that there was no
evidence to believe the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per
month, erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no basis for coming to such
a conclusion. Therefore, the compensation awarded in favour
of the petitioners shall be reduced.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners strongly
relied on the judgment between 'Shivkumar M. Vs.
Managing Director, Bengaluru' 2, where in, the Honb'le
Apex Court was pleased to observe that in case of 45 year old
house painter was doing daily work/piece rated work can earn
(2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 79
4 SSRN, J
MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and
MACMA.NO.387 of 2021
Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/- per month. He has also relied on
another judgment between 'M/s.National Insurance Co.
Ltd., Vs. Aggidi Rajitha' 3.
6. As per the undisputed facts elicited from all the
witnesses, it is quite clear that the deceased who was aged
about 45 years, met with an accident on 15-10-2016 while
proceeding to Singaraipally and succumbed to the injuries
while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital. The
petitioners being wife and children of the deceased have
claimed that the deceased was working as a farm house
supervisor. He was earning Rs.12,000/- per month at the
time of accident. After collecting custard apples from a farm,
he proceeded on his TVS XL bike and when he reached
Mutrajpally road on Rajiv Rahadari, the driver of a Van
bearing No.23 U 8469 by driving the same in high speed, in a
rash and negligent manner dashed the bike of the deceased.
7. The tribunal accepted the evidence of the
witnesses produced by the petitioners and held that the
accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by
the Van driver. The tribunal though did not accept the claim
of petitioners that the deceased was working as a Supervisor
Law Finder Doc Id # 2054898
5 SSRN, J
MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and
MACMA.NO.387 of 2021
in a Farm house assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.10,000/- on the ground that even if the income of a daily
wage labour @ 300/- is considered, the deceased being an
able bodied person with 45 years could easily earn Rs.8,500/-
for 26 working days and he being a vegetable vendor may
have slightly higher income and could earn Rs.10,000/- per
month. As per the record placed by the parties, the
petitioner's wife and children were depending upon the
earnings of the deceased. He was a vegetable vendor
maintaining his own motor-bike.
8. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
'Shiv Kumar' referred supra, the income of the house painter
can be assessed as Rs.15,000/- but here the petitioners could
not place any material to believe that the deceased was
working as a supervisor in a farm house, therefore, the
income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.10,000/- per
month, but the tribunal did not add any future prospects. In
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Sarla
Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation' 4 and 'National
Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi 5', minimum 25% of
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
2017 ACJ 2700
6 SSRN, J
MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and
MACMA.NO.387 of 2021
the accepted income of the deceased can be added towards
future prospects. Since there are four family members, 1/3rd
of the income shall be deducted towards the personal
expenditure of the deceased. The tribunal failed to award
loss of consortium to the petitioners No.2 and 3.
9. Therefore, if the income of the deceased is
considered as Rs.10,000/- per month and if 25% of the said
income is added, the income of the deceased would be
Rs.12,500/- per month and Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. If
1/3rd of the said income is deducted towards personal
expenditure, the yearly contribution of the deceased would be
Rs.1,00,000/-. In view of the deceased being 45 years, the
appropriate multiplier is '14', as such, monetary loss in view
of the death of the deceased is Rs.14,00,000/-. The
petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The
petitioners No.1 to 3 are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards
loss of consortium, thereby, they are entitled to an amount of
Rs.15,50,000/- which will carry 7.5% of interest from the
date of accident till the entire amount is realized.
7 SSRN, J
MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 and
MACMA.NO.387 of 2021
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the petitioners in
MACMA.No.387 of 2021 is allowed. The compensation
amount was enhanced from 11,90,000/- to Rs.15,50,000/-.
Consequentially, the appeal preferred by the insurance
company vide MACMA.No.2911 of 2019 is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are
closed. No costs.
________________________
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J
21st March, 2024.
PLV
