Telangana High Court
Thallagudem Lavanya , Sharada vs D. Chandraiah on 9 April, 2025
1
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NOs.128 and 374 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
The appellants - claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.128 of 2021
seeking enhancement of compensation, while M.A.C.M.A.No.374 of
2021 is filed by the Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the order and decree dated
11.11.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1175 of 2016 by the Motor
Accidents Tribunal - cum - III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), granting compensation
of Rs.15,62,120/- against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- for the
death of one T.Raju (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in the
accident occurred on 04.04.2016.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties herein
are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on
04.04.2016, the deceased T.Raju was proceeding on his bike
bearing No.AP 09 AQ 0445 from Ibrahimpatnam to
Dandumailaram Village and when he reached near Gurunanak
Engineering College, one Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 24 X -
0370 & AP 29 TB 3705 came in a rash and negligent manner at a
high speed and dashed the bike of the deceased, due to which he
ETD,J
fell down, sustained fatal injuries and died. Therefore, the
petitioners have filed an application seeking compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/-.
4. The respondent No.1/the owner of the crime vehicle and
respondent No.3 who was the driver of the crime vehicle remained
ex parte.
5. Respondent No.2/the insurer of the crime vehicle, filed
counter denying the material averments as to the occurrence of the
accident, age, income and avocation of the deceased. They further
contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
bike rider and that there was no negligence of the tractor driver.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for trial:
"1. Whether the deceased died in the road accident
occurred on 04.04.2016 due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing
No.AP24X - 0370 & AP-29TB 3705?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation?
If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Whether the policy is in force at the time of accident?
4. To what relief?"
ETD,J
7. At the time of trial, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3
and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents,
Ex.B1 was marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a
compensation of Rs.15,62,120/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners have preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.128 of 2021 while the
Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.374 of 2021.
9. Heard the submission of Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned
counsel for the claimants and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the
Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.20 Lakhs but has awarded less
compensation and that the Tribunal failed to accept the income of
the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and has assessed a very
low income of Rs.6,500/- and that the Tribunal ought to have
awarded more compensation under the heads of loss of estate,
funeral expenses and towards loss of consortium.
11. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued
that the Tribunal has grossly erred in granting compensation to the
petitioners and that there was contributory negligence on part of
ETD,J
the deceased. He further contended that there is no rash and
negligence of the tractor driver. He further contended that the
deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4th
but the Tribunal has taken 1/5th which is erroneous. He further
contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken only Rs.4,500/-
per month towards earnings of the deceased but has wrongly
assessed the income as Rs.6,500/- in the absence of any proof. He
therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for consideration:
1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to rash
and negligence of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer
bearing No.AP 24 X - 0370 & AP 29 TB 3705, resulting
in the death of the deceased?
2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part
of the deceased in the occurrence of accident?
3. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable?
4. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any
interference?
5. To what relief?
13. POINT NOS.1 AND 2:
a) PW1 is the wife of the deceased and she is not an eye witness
to the accident. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident. His
ETD,J
evidence reveals that he was at the scene of accident and that he
witnessed the accident and he deposed that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor
and trolley.
b) A perusal of Exs.A1 and A2 reveals that First Information
Report was registered against the driver of Tractor and Trolley and
the charge sheet is also filed against him, after investigation by the
police. Therefore, based on the above said evidence of PW2
coupled with Exs.A1 and A2, it is held that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the tractor and
trolley and that there is no contributory negligence of the deceased.
Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
14. POINT NO.3:
a) The petitioners asserted the occupation of the deceased as
Mason and that he was working under Naidu builders. PW3 was
examined to prove the income of the deceased saying that the
deceased worked under Naidu builders by taking sub-contracts of
constructions of new and old buildings at Ibrahipatnam Town
Limits and that he used to earn an average monthly income of
Rs.20,000/. In his cross examination nothing much was elicited to
discredit his evidence. However, in the absence of any
documentary proof, the income as stated by PW3 cannot be taken.
ETD,J
b) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Apex Court has held
that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a
labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income.
But in the present case, the deceased was a vegetable vendor and
also working as a Mason, as per the contention of the claim
petitioners. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of
the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas's case, the monthly
income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal to be
Rs.6,500/- per month appears to be well justified.
c) In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Others 2, 40% of the income needs to be added towards future
prospects. Adding 40% towards future prospects would give
Rs.9,100/- (Rs.6,500/-x 40/100 = 2600/-) per month, which
comes to Rs.9,100/- x 12 = Rs.1,09,200/- per annum.
d) Further, a deduction of 1/4th is to be made to the income of
the deceased as there were five dependents, but the Tribunal has
taken 1/5th as a deduction. Therefore, after deducting 1/4th
(2011) 12 SCC 236
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
ETD,J
towards personal expenses, the income of the deceased would
come upto Rs.81,900/- (Rs.1,09,200/- (-) Rs.27,300/-).
e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A3
reveals the age of the deceased as 27 years. Therefore, the age as
revealed under Ex.A3 is taken into consideration. The multiplier
should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per
column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation 3. The deceased being aged 27 years, the
appropriate multiplier to be applied is '17'. Therefore, the loss of
dependency comes upto Rs.13,92,300/- (Rs.81,900/- x 17)
f) With regard to the consortium, the Tribunal has awarded
only Rs.44,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner who is
the wife of the deceased but not awarded to the 2nd and 5th
petitioners who are the children, 3rd and 4th petitioners who are the
parents of the deceased. Instead, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.16,500/- under the head love and affection, which is not
proper.
g) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15,000/- towards loss
of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and
2009 (6) SCC 121
ETD,J
further it was held that there has to be 10% enhancement in these
amounts for every three years.
h) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 4, the Apex Court has elaborately
discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has
further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children
of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore,
in the present case, all the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each
towards 'loss of consortium', hence, the compensation amount
under this head would be Rs.2,42,000/- instead of Rs.44,000/-.
Further, it is held that under the heads of funeral expenses
Rs.18,150/- and loss of estate Rs.18,150/- would be just and
proper.
i) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation amounts:
1. Compensation under the head of loss Rs.13,92,300/-
of dependency
2. Compensation towards loss of Rs.2,42,000/-
consortium
3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
4. Compensation towards funeral Rs.18,150/-
expenses
Total Rs.16,70,600/-
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
j) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,62,120/- while the
claimants are held to be entitled to a compensation of
Rs.16,70,600/- and hence, the same is enhanced to the said
extent. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
15. POINT NO.4:
In view of the finding arrived at point Nos.1 to 3, it is held
that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be
modified. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent
of Rs.15,62,120/- is enhanced to Rs.16,70,600/-.
16. POINT NO.5:
In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.374 of 2021 filed by the
Insurance Company is dismissed, while the M.A.C.M.A.No.128 of
2021 filed by the claimants is partly allowed modifying the order
and decree dated 11.11.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1175 of 2016
by the Motor Accidents Tribunal - cum - III Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from
Rs.15,62,120/- to Rs.16,70,600/- and the enhanced amount of
compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the
date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the
period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are
directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
ETD,J
this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.
On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the said
amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective
shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 09.04.2025
ns
