Telangana High Court
Meduri Rajini Prasantha Kumari vs M/S. Golden Travels on 4 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1592 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Appellants-claimants filed this appeal aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006 in M.O.P.No.427 of 2003
passed by the Chairman, Motor vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal
cum Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District invoking the
provisions of section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement
of the compensation.
2. Heard Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for the appellants. In
spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter
appearance. Hence this Court appointed Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy
who is the panel advocate of respondent No.2-Insurance Company
readily available before this Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are:
On 07.12.2002, the deceased proceeded on a motor cycle from
Kukatpally to go to BHEL. On the way when the motor cycle reached
a place near Madinaguda Petrol Bunk, one tourist bus bearing
No.KA-01-C-777 being driven by its driver, at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed the motor
cycle. After the hit the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The
appellants who are wife and children of the deceased have filed
M.O.P.No.427 of 2003 claiming compensation amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest and costs for the loss
sustained due to the death of the deceased-Meduri Moses. The
Tribunal allowed the M.O.P. in part and passed award directing
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay an amount of Rs.6,07,000/- along
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of realization and costs.
4. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently contended that the
age of the deceased at the time of accident is 40 years and the
appropriate multiplier is '15'. However, the Tribunal wrongly applied
lesser multiplier '11', on the ground that the wife of the deceased,
who is appellant No.1 is an employee, which is contrary to law.
5. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal ought to
have taken gross salary of the deceased, on the other hand taken net
salary and further contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any
amount under loss of consortium, loss of estate and future prospects
and also awarded meager amount under the head of future
prospects.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal
below has rightly passed the impugned award and appellants are not
entitled for enhancement of compensation.
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the record. It is an undisputed fact
that the husband of the appellant No.1 namely Meduri Moses died
due to the rash and negligent driving of the tourist bus bearing No.
KA-01-C-777. In so far as compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
concerned, the Tribunal below has taken net salary of the deceased
and not applied appropriate multiplier. It is also undisputed fact that
at the time of accident, the age of the deceased is 40 years and
appropriate multiplier is '15'. The gross salary of the deceased per
month is Rs.8,109/-. The Tribunal ought to have taken gross salary
of the deceased instead of taking net salary. It appears that the
gross salary of the deceased was Rs.8,109/- and Rs.97,308/- per
annum. After deduction of 1/3rd of income towards personal
expenses, it comes to Rs.64,872/- and the total loss of dependency
comes to Rs.64,872 x 15 = 9,73,080/-, which is the loss of
dependency. The claimants are also entitled 50% of the same
towards future prospectus which comes to Rs.4,86,540/- on the
ground that the deceased was aged 40 years and he was a
Government employee. Thus the total amount comes to
Rs.14,59,620/-. In addition to the above said amount, the claimants
are entitled to Rs.36,300/- towards funeral expenses and loss of
estate of Rs.1,45,200/- towards consortium to spouse as well as
parental consortium. Thus in all the appellants are entitled for
Rs.16,41,120/- under all counts.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the
compensation from Rs.6,07,000/- to Rs.16,41,120/- along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation along with interest within a period of 2 months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the
appellants are entitled to withdraw the amount as per their
respective share.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall
stand closed.
______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 04.11.2024
BV
