Telangana High Court
Gaikamle Shivananda And 4 Others vs G. Shiva Rama Krishna And Another on 20 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.2748 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
District Judge, Adilabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.
No.4 of 2006, dated 20.04.2009, the present appeal is filed by
the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Heard Sri C.Gurunam Singh, learned counsel,
representing Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri N.S.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-National Insurance Company.
3. Brief facts of case:
3.1 On 13.04.2005 in the morning hours appellant No.1 and
her husband G.Rohidas were proceeding from their village
Chichdhari-Khanapur on scooter bearing No. AAO 4167 to
Gudihatnoor and on the way at about 9-30 a.m., near
Yamaikunta Village, they were hit by the lorry bearing No.
AP.31.T.4511 which was coming from the opposite direction
with high speed, as a result of which, appellant No.1 suffered
with grievous injuries and her husband Rohidas who was
driving the scooter had sustained grievous injuries and died on
the spot. Prior to the accident, the deceased-Rohidas was
working as a labourer and earning Rs.3,000/- per month.
Thus, the appellants claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-
under various heads against respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, the Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part and
awarded compensation of Rs.1,69,500/- to be payable by the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended
that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.
AP.31.T.4511, the deceased died and at the time of his death,
he was aged 35 years and doing labour work, however, the
Tribunal without considering the same, awarded meager
amount of Rs.1,69,500/- under various heads. He further
contended that by virtue of the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachanrappa vs Manager, Royal
Sundaram Allian. Company Limited 1, in the absence of any
evidence, the income of the deceased can be taken at
(2011) 13 SCC 236
Rs.4,500/- per month and that the Tribunal has not awarded
any amount towards cost of litigation, as per the decision laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi
and another 2. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for just
and reasonable compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits
that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the oral and
documentary evidence on record, has rightly awarded an
amount of Rs.1,69,500/- towards compensation under all
heads. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for
enhancement of compensation as claimed by them in this
appeal.
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the records. It is undisputed
fact that the deceased-G.Rohidas died in the accident occurred
on 13.04.2005. The record shows that the Tribunal after
considering the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A9
rightly held that both the deceased and the driver of lorry are
equally responsible for the accident.
2014 (5) ALD 42 SC
8. According to the appellants, the deceased-Rohidas was
aged 35 years and was working as labourer. In view of the
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramachanrappa (supra), in the absence of any evidence, the
income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month.
Thus, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court
in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
and others 3, the appellants are entitled to future prospects @
40% of his income, since the deceased was aged above 35
years. Then it comes to Rs.6,300/-. Since the dependants of
the deceased are five persons, 1/4th of his income is to be
deducted towards his personal expenses. Then the
contribution of the deceased would be Rs.4,725/- per month.
Since the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of
accident, the appropriate multiplier in the light of the judgment
of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 4 would be "16". Then the loss of dependency
would be Rs.4725/- x 12 x 16 =Rs.9,07,200/-. In addition
thereto, the appellants are entitled for Rs.48,400/- each
towards filial consortium as per Magma General Insurance
2017 ACJ 2700
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
Company Limited v Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram 5, which
comes to Rs.2,42,000/- and Rs.36,300/- towards funeral
expenses. The appellants are also entitled for Rs.10,000/-
towards litigation expenses as per the principle laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Mekala (supra). Thus, in all,
the compensation is awarded as follows:
Sl.No. Description Amount awarded
Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 9,07,200-00
2. Funeral expenses 36,300-00
3. Filial consortium 2,42,000-00
4. Litigation expenses 10,000-00
Total: Rs.11,95,500-00
9. As stated above, the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of both the deceased and the driver
of lorry and culpability for the accident has been fixed at 50:50.
Thus, the appellants are entitled for an amount of
Rs.5,97,750/-.
10. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.1,69,500/- to Rs.5,97,750/-. The enhanced amount shall
carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date
(2018) 18 SCC 130
of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned
among the appellants-claimants in the ratio as ordered by the
Tribunal. The appellants are directed to deposit the deficit
court fee before the Tribunal. On such payment court fee only,
the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without
furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 20.11.2024
pgp
