Telangana High Court
Mekala Rajamma And 2 Others vs M.Narasimha And 3 Others on 6 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A.NO.866 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the judgment, dated 31.03.2008 in
O.P.No.450 of 2006 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,
Karimnagar, whereunder their petition for compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- on account of death of one Raja Mallu
(hereinafter be referred as "deceased") in a road traffic
accident was allowed in part, granting a sum of
Rs.1,63,000/- as compensation, the petitioners in the above
referred O.P.No.450 of 2006 have filed this appeal under
Section 173 of M.V.Act., and prayed for enhancement of
compensation from Rs.1,63,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- on the
following grounds:
The order and decree impugned in the present appeal
is unjustified, contrary to the settled principles of law laid
down under the motor accident claims cases. The Tribunal
ought to have seen that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry which
belong to the 1st respondent. The Tribunal committed an
error by awarding Rs.10,000/- as compensation under the
head of consortium which could have been Rs.15,000/-.
The Tribunal failed to follow the decided cases and
committed an error in assessing the income of the deceased
as Rs.15,000/- per annum instead of assessing the same as
Rs.60,000/- per annum. The rate of interest awarded by the
Court could have been 12%-, but the Tribunal granted
interst @7.5% and lower amount of Rs.2,500/- was
awarded under the head of loss of estate and Rs.10,000/-
under the head of loss of affection, thereby the appellants
sought for enhancement of the compensation.
2. According to the petition filed by the appellants before
the Tribunal, it was alleged that on 13.05.2006 the
deceased and some other TRS party workers with a view to
join in congress party, proceeded to Hyderabad by engaging
a bus belongs to 3rd respondent namely Trinity Model
School, Peddapally, and all of they started from Chekurai to
meet the Chief Minister at Hyderabad. When the bus
reached the outskirts of Pragnapur, the driver of a lorry
bearing No.AP9-X-2589 which belongs to the 1st respondent
while coming in wrong side, drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed, dashed the above said
bus, due to which the deceased and other passéngers
received fatal injuries. The deceased was shifted to NIMS
hospital at Hyderabad, where the appellants spent
Rs.40,000/- for the treatment. However, he succumbed to
the injuries on 20.05.2006.
3. The appellants have filed the above said petition
initially against the owner and insurer of the lorry and
sought for Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. In view of the
contentions raised the insurance company, the appellants
have filed a petition to implead the owner and insurer of the
bus in which the deceased and other persons travelled at
the time of accident, and in view of orders in the said
interlocutory application.
4. The respondents have opposed the claim. A detailed
counter has been filed. Initially, the Tribunal has framed
the following issues:
1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-9-X-
2589 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover
compensation and if so to what amount and from
whom?
3. To what relief?
5. Subsequent to the impleadment of respondent Nos. 3
and 4, an additional issue has been framed as follows:
Whether respondent Nos.3 and 4 are liable to pay
compensation?
6. The appellants have examined PWs 1 and 2 and
marked Exs.A1 to A6. RWs 1 to 3 were examined by
respondents apart from marking Exs.B1 to B8. The
Tribunal having appreciated the pleadings of parties and
after appreciating the evidence, concluded that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of
above said lorry and allowed the petition in part by granting
a sum of Rs.1,63,000/- as compensation.
7. In order to assess the said compensation, the Tribunal
did not accept the contentions of the appellant that the
deceased was earning Rs.60,000/- per annum on the
ground that they could not produce any evidence about the
income of the deceased. However, based on second
schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, the Tribunal assessed
the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum and
after deducting 1/3 of the said income, and on applying
multiplier "13", considered an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- as
loss of life and dependency and granted Rs.33,000/- under
the heads of treatment, transportation charges, consortium,
funeral expenses, loss of estate.
8. Heard both parties.
9. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the appellants are enhanced compensation? If
so, to what amount?
10. As already stated in the previous paragraphs, though
the petition was filed against the owner and insurer of both
vehicles involved in the accident, the Tribunal having
appreciated the evidence of both parties, held that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of lorry. The said finding was not challenged by the
respondents, thereby it has become final.
11. The appellants herein have claimed that the deceased
was an agriculturist, he was having agricultural land and
he used to earn Rs.60,000/- per annum. However, they did
not produce any evidence in support of the said claim.
Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased
as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The said finding was based on
the second schedule of the motor vehicle Act.
12. As rightly contended by the appellants herein, and in
view of the subsequent judgments of the various High
Courts and Hon'ble Apex Court, it was observed that the
notional income of a person whose income could not have
been proved, can be assessed as Rs.30,000/-. As per the
averments made in the petition the deceased was aged
about 50 years at the time of accident. It seems he was
actively indulging in politics as well as agricultural
operations. Therefore, the Court below could have
considered the above aspects while assessing the annual
income of the deceased. As righly contended by the
appellants, the Tribunal adopted the second schedule,
assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-
i.e., Rs.1,250/- per month, which is definitely a meager
income.
13. In view of the subsequent judgments and in view of
the fact that the deceased was aged about 50 yeas, his
annual income can be considered as Rs.30,000/-. Even if
1/3 of the said income is deducted towards his personal
expenses, the annual contribution would be Rs.20,000/-
and since the deceased was 50 years, the relevant
multiplier is "13" i.e., Rs.20000 X 13=2,60,000/-.
14. The evidence on record clearly indicates that when the
accident occurred on 13.05.2006, he was immediately
shifted to Hyderabad and was admitted in NIMS hospital,
where he succumbed to injuries on 20.05.2006. The Court
below having considered the said aspect, awarded an
amount of Rs.6,000/- towards treatment, Rs.2000/-
towards transportation charges, and Rs.10,000/- towards
consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate.
15. The accident took place in the year 2006. Therefore,
the above said amounts are appropriately awarded by the
Tribunal. There is no need to enhance the amounts as
such the appellants are entitled to Rs.2,82,500/-.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
compensation amount has been enhanced from
Rs.1,63,000/- to Rs.2,82,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of accident till the entire amount is
paid.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
Date:06.03.2024
PSSK
