Elmulu Susheela And 2 Others vs Akki Reddy Anand , Achi Reddy And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4728 Tel

Telangana High Court

Elmulu Susheela And 2 Others vs Akki Reddy Anand , Achi Reddy And Another on 10 April, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.142 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the

Award and decree passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad,

(hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.316 of 2017,

dated 24.04.2019, wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim

petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of

Rs.9,00,000/- on account of death of her husband, namely Sri Bapu,

(herein after referred as 'deceased') who died in Motor Vehicle accident

on 18.06.2017.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier

filed M.V.O.P.No.316 of 2017 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988

seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the

accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the

Auto rickshaw driver. It is contended that on 04.06.2017, the deceased

along with his wife i.e., appellant/petitioner No.1 herein was proceeding

to their village in Auto Rickshaw bearing No.TS-20-T-0949 and when

said auto reached Tekulapalli, all of sudden the driver of Auto Rickshaw

drove it in high speed in rash and negligent manner lost control, thereby

auto turned turtle, and the deceased fell down on the ground and

sustained grievous injuries all over the body more particularly on the

head. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital

Mancherial and Karimnagar and to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for

better treatment. On 18.06.2017, the deceased succumbed to injuries.

The Police registered a case in Crime No.14/2017 under Section 304-

IPC against the respondent no.1/driver of auto rickshaw bearing No.TS-

20-T-0949. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under

various heads.

3. The contention of the petitioners was that, at the date of accident

the deceased was aged about 48 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per

month by doing agriculture work. Due to the said accident, the

petitioners lost their dependency.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 (driver-cum-owner of

Auto Rickshaw) remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2 - TATA AIG

General Insurance Company Limited filed a counter-affidavit, denying

all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in

which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the

deceased and submitted that the driver of the offending auto rickshaw

was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and the

vehicle was plying on the road without valid permit and fitness and

further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and

prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the Tribual framed the following issues which reads as under:

1. Whether the death of deceased caused in Motorcycle vehicle accident occurred on 04.06.2017 at about 1600 hrs., at Tekulapalli village of Kannepalli mandal on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle ie., Auto rickshaw bearing No.TS-20-T-0949?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief.?

6. Accordingly, after going into the entire material placed on record

and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal

allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.4,81,000/-

along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

7. Being aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by

the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that

deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agricultural

work. The appellant has examined PW1 and have filed the relevant

documents which was marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 and proved that the

accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased died due to

rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, but without considering

the evidence in proper manner with regard to income of the deceased,

the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased's income at Rs.4,500/- per

month and taken the age of deceased as 55 years instead of 48 years at

the date of accident, therefore, the amount awarded by the learned

Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that there

is no dispute with regard to accident, death of the deceased and the

injuries sustained by the deceased. As far as compensation of the

deceased is concerned, the deceased was hale and health and was aged

48 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from and out of doing

agriculture work. Learned counsel further submitted that no income

can be expected in such cases, when the deceased was working as

agriculturist or labourer. As regards the age of the deceased, the

petitioner contended that at the date of accident, the deceased was aged

about 48 years, however the Tribunal has taken the age of deceased as

55 years basing on the PME report without considering the Ex.A9 i.e.,

prescription issued by Pulse Critical Care Hospital and Ex.A10 i.e,

prescriptions issued by Sri Krishna Hospital and Ex.A11 i.e., Bunch of

Test Receipt which was filed in support of petitioners' averments shows

that the petitioner aged is about 45 years at the date of accident and

pray this Court to allow the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that after

considering the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal has

awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

10. Heard Sri Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and

Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

Perused the material on record.

11. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against

the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute

regarding liability of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and accident. The only

point arose before this Court in this appeal is that:

i) Whether the age of the deceased was 48 years as claimed by the petitioner at the time of accident or 55 years.

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?

Point No.1

12. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on

04.06.2017. As per the Ex.A3 (Inquest Panchanama) and Ex.A4 (PME

Report), the age of the deceased is recorded as 55 years. But in Exs.9 &

10, i.e., prescriptions issued by Pulse Hospital & Sai Krishna Hospital

respectively, the age of the deceased as recorded as 45, 46 and 48 years

at different places and there is no consistency with regard to mention of

the age in the prescriptions, which the petitioners are relied upon to

prove their claim. In view of the same, this Court feels that the learned

Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 55 years based on

the Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

Point No.2

13. Admittedly, the deceased was self-employed and working as

'agriculturist', the claimants/appellants could not produce the Income

certificate to substantiate her contention that the deceased was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. In this regard, it is imperative to look into the

settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhwa

vs. State of Bihar 1 wherein it was held that even when there is no

1 2001(8) SCC 197

proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated

and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts.

14. For considering the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is

necessary to ascertain the actual income of the deceased. The

appellants/claimants stated that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/-

per month by doing agricultural work, but the Tribunal fixed the

monthly notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-, which is very

meager and in the absence of any proof of income, considering the

deceased age as 55 years and it is not in dispute that deceased was

working as agricultural. Hence considering the ground realities and

taking the age of deceased as 55 years at the date of accident, who was

hale and health would obviously would earn Rs.250/- per day and the

monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.7,500/-. Hence, the

deceased income can be notionally taken as Rs.7,500/-. Apart from

that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2 and

considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, additional 15% of the

income has to be added towards future prospect to the monthly income

of the deceased. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased would

2 2017 ACJ 2700

come to Rs.8,625/- (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.1,125/-). The annual income of the

deceased would come to Rs.1,03,500/- (Rs.8,625/- X 12) and, out of

which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the

deceased as the dependants are three in number. Then the actual

annual income would come to Rs.69,000/- (Rs.1,03,500/- (-)

Rs.34,500/-).

15. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the

Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3, and

considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, the appropriate

multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '11'. Thus, the total loss

of dependency would come to Rs.7,59,000/- (69,000/- x 11).

16. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/-

(Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/-

(Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranay

Sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

17. Further, considering the appellant No.1 being the wife of deceased,

appellant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of

'loss of consortium' as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

18. As far as appellant No.2 is concerned, who is son of the deceased,

appellant No.2 is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/-

under the head of 'loss of parental consortium', as per Magma General

Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram 4

19. Appellant No.3 being the mother of the deceased, she is entitled

for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of 'loss of

filial consortium' as per Magma's Judgment (cited supra)

20. There is no dispute with regard to awarding of Rs.5,000/- towards

transport charges and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses by the

learned Tribunal, and the same needs no interference which being just

and reasonable.

21. In Sarla Verma's case (cited above), the Hon'ble Apex Court,

while elaborating the concept of 'just compensation' observed as under:

"Post compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying, the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."

2018 (18) SCC 130

22. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited

decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to

enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above

and given in the table for easy reference

23. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants

would be entitled to as follows:

i)     Annual Income (of the deceased)
       Rs.7,500/- X 12   =   Rs.90,000/-

ii)     Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
        Prospects (Annual Income X 15%) =
        Rs.90,000/- + Rs.13,500/-      =       Rs.1,03,500/-

iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,03,500/- (-) Rs.34,500/- = Rs.69,000/-

iv)    Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied
       Multiplier = Rs.69,000/- x 11 =                         Rs.7,59,000/-

v)     Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads =
       Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of

consortium + loss of filal consortium + Parental Consortium = Rs.1,81,500/-

Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 + 48400 + Rs.48,400/- =

vi) Transport & Medical Expenses Rs.25,000/-

Total Rs.9,65,500/-

24. Though the compensation claimed is Rs.4,00,000/-, but invoking

the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh 5, and in a

catena of decisions, there is no bar for awarding of the compensation

beyond the claimed amount by the appellants.

25. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced

compensation of Rs.9,65,500/- as against the awarded amount of

Rs.4,81,000/- by the learned Tribunal.

26. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has

rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7.5 % per annum and the same

needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion

that the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 7.5 % on the enhanced

amount except for 166 days which was ordered by this Court in IA No.1

of 2020, dated 26.10.2022

27. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation

of Rs.9,65,500/-. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.4,81,000/- to Rs. 9,65,500/- (Rupees Nine

Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand and Five Hundred rupees only) with interest

at the rate of 7.5% p.a. (except 166 days) on the enhanced amount from

MANU/SC/0480/2013

the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are

directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest

after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within

two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation

amount shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the

same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. However, the

petitioners/claimants are directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the

enhanced amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

28. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J 09.04.2025 SHA