Telangana High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Gone Padma And 2 Others on 11 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2989 OF 2009 AND 3019 OF 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT:
M.A.C.M.A.No.3019 of 2008 is filed by the claimants and
M.A.C.M.A.No.2989 of 2009 is filed by the Insurance Company.
Since both the appeals are filed aggrieved by the judgment dated
27.12.2005 in O.P.No.604 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad (for short 'the
Tribunal'), they are being disposed of by way of this common
judgment.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. On 18.10.2000, while the deceased viz., Gone Ramesh was
proceeding towards Mosra village from Kotgir village on a Scooter
along with one Mahesh and when they reached Suleman Farm, the
offending vehicle, which was a tractor bearing No.AP-25/B-9878
along with trailer bearing No.AP-25/D-5509 driven by its driver,
came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the Scooter, resulting in both of them were received injuries
and later, on the same day, the deceased succumbed to injuries
while undergoing treatment.
KS,J
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2989/2009 and 3019/2008
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit
that though it is specifically mentioned that the deceased was a
beedi commission agent and also doing cloth business and was
earning around Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month, the Tribunal
has considered the income as Rs.3,000/- per month only.
5. In case of daily wage labourer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance 1, held that the reasonable income would be Rs.4,500/- per
month. Since it is not in dispute that the deceased was doing cloth
business and also commission agent, this Court is inclined to
consider the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month while
granting compensation.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would
submit that the tractor number was not mentioned in FIR and
further, the trailer of the tractor was not insured.
7. The fact remains that it was specifically mentioned regarding
the tractor being involved in the accident, not noting down the
number of the tractor in case of accident cannot be viewed
suspiciously. However, the trailer is part of the tractor, as such no
separate insurance is required to the trailer.
(2011) 13 SCC 236
KS,J
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2989/2009 and 3019/2008
8. On perusal of the records, as per Ex.A3/post mortem report,
the age of the deceased as on the date of accident was 27 years.
Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, if 40% of his income is
added towards future prospects, the monthly income would come to
Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + (40% of 2,000)). As there are two
dependants on the deceased (i.e., wife and mother of the deceased),
1/3rd of his income is deducted towards personal expenditure as per
the authority in Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 3, and thus, the monthly contribution of the deceased
to the claimants would be Rs.4,667/- (7,000- (1/3rd of 7,000)). Then
annual contribution comes to Rs.56,000/-. As per Schedule II of
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the said annual
contribution arrived is multiplied with relevant multiplier i.e., '17' to
the age of the deceased, the total amount comes to Rs.9,52,000/-.
The claimants are entitled for the said amount under the head of
loss of dependency.
9. Further, relying on the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's case
(2 supra), the claimants are granted Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
KS,J
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2989/2009 and 3019/2008
expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, each
claimant is granted Rs.40,000/- towards consortium.
10. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation as
below:
Sl.No. Name of the Head Compensation Compensation
awarded by awarded by this
the Tribunal Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.4,32,000/- Rs.9,52,000/-
2. Loss of consortium Rs.15,000/- Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- to each
claimant)
3. Funeral expenses Rs.2,500/- Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/-
6. Total Rs.4,49,500/- Rs.10,62,000/-
11. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.3019 of 2008 is allowed by
enhancing the compensation from Rs.4,49,500/- to Rs.10,62,000/-
and M.A.C.M.A.No.2989 of 2009 is dismissed.
(a) The awarded amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The claimants shall pay the Court fee on the excess amount of
compensation awarded by this Court.
KS,J
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2989/2009 and 3019/2008
(c) The respondents shall deposit the amount within a period of
eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire
amount without furnishing the security.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous
petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 11.09.2024
Dua
