Telangana High Court
Poloju Shyamala vs Subramani.S on 3 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.2353 of 2013 and 1200 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 23.01.2013 in
O.P.No.2845 of 2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad,
the claimants have filed MACMA No.1200 of 2019 for
enhancement of the compensation and Insurance Company
has filed MACMA No.2353 of 2013 questioning the
quantum of compensation awarded.
2. Since both the appeals arise out of the very same
finding in O.P.No.2845 of 2008, both the appeals are
disposed of by way of common judgment.
3. Heard both sides and perused the entire material on
record.
4. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of
an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- and the Tribunal has granted
compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of payment in
favour of claimant Nos.1 to 6.
KS, J
MACMA_2353_2013 and
1200_2019
5. The manner of accident and the death of the
deceased are not disputed by either of the parties.
6. The case of the claimants is that on 12.09.2008 at
about 07.00 PM, while the deceased was proceeding on
bicycle from Sarnenigudem village to Jai Kesaram village,
meanwhile, the offending vehicle which is lorry driven by its
driver at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and
dashed the deceased bicycle, due to which deceased died on
the spot.
7. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the
deceased at Rs.4,250/-. However, according to PW3,
employer of the deceased stated that he was being paid
around Rs.8,000/- per month towards his services as a
Carpenter. Since, it is not in dispute that deceased was a
Carpenter, income of Rs.6,000/- can be considered while
assessing compensation.
8. Learned standing counsel for the Insurance
Company would submit that the driver did not have license,
however, the Tribunal granted compensation which is
KS, J
MACMA_2353_2013 and
1200_2019
contributed to the policy conditions. Though it was claimed
by the Insurance Company that the driver was not holding
license, they failed to adduce any evidence to place reliance
on the Motor Vehicle Inspector report while vehicle was
inspected, that the driver did not produce license. On such
endorsement made in the Motor Vehicle report that the
license was not produced by the driver would not meant
that the driver was not valid license. Since, the burden on
the Insurance Company was not discharged to prove that
driver was not holding valid license, hence, there are no
grounds to interfere while awarding compensation.
9. It is not disputed that the deceased was doing
Carpenter. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to
consider the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per
month.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 1 has held that while
considering the compensation in cases of death, the future
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
KS, J
MACMA_2353_2013 and
1200_2019
prospects of the self employed shall also be considered.
Having regard to the age of deceased i.e. 39 years as on the
date of accident and occupation as self-employed, if 40
percent of the income is included as future prospects, the
monthly income would come to Rs.8,400/-
(Rs.6,000+2,400). As per the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Varma v Delhi Transport
Corporation2, since the dependants are five members,
1/5th of the income shall be deducted towards personal
expenditure which comes to Rs.1,680/- (Rs.8,400X1/5).
Thus the annual contribution of the deceased to the
claimants would be of Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000X12). As per
Schedule II of the Act, the relevant multiplier for the age of
the deceased is '15'. Thus, the compensation under the
head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,80,000/-
(Rs.72,000 X 15).
11. As regards the consortium to be paid, each claimant
is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards consortium as decided by
the Hon'ble Apex court in case of Pranay Sethi (2 Supra).
2009(6) SCC 121
KS, J
MACMA_2353_2013 and
1200_2019
With regard to the funeral expenses and loss of estate, the
claimants are entitled for Rs.33,000/-.
12. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the
compensation as below:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.10,80,000
(2) Funeral expenses and Rs.33,000
Loss of Estate
(3) Loss of spousal consortium Rs.44,000 for 1st
claimant
(4) Loss of parental consortium Rs.1,76,000 for
(5) Loss of filial consortium Rs.44,000 for
claimant No.6
Total compensation awarded Rs.13,77,000/-
13. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous
Appeal of the Insurance Company fails and the same is
dismissed. However, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous
Appeal of the claimants is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.13,77,000/- as hereunder:
KS, J
MACMA_2353_2013 and
1200_2019
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at
7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of cross objections
till the date of realization.
(b) The respondents shall deposit the amount within
a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy
of judgment. On such deposit, claimant is permitted
to withdraw entire amount without furnishing any
security.
(c) As claimant No.1 being wife of the deceased, is
entitled for major share i.e. 75% in compensation
amount.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 03.09.2024
mmr
