Telangana High Court
Gugulothu Sarala And 4 Others vs Cheni Ravi And 2 Others on 11 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.188 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the
Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar, (hereinafter referred
to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2014, dated 06.06.2019,
wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on
account of death of 1st petitioner husband, namely Sri Sampath, (herein
after referred as 'deceased') who died in Motor Vehicle accident occurred
on 06.04.2013.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants filed
M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2014 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 by the Tata
lorry driver. It is contended that on 06.04.2013, the deceased along with
his friend were proceeding to Huzurabad on Hero-Honda Splendor
Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-10-AG-8128 and when they reached near
Thumanapally filter bed, the driver of Tata Lorry bearing No.AP-15-TB-
8995 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from
rear and dashed to the deceased motorcycle from backside, as a result,
the deceased and his friend fell down deceased fell down on the ground
and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and the deceased died
on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2013 under
Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending
vehicle, wherein a charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the
lorry and made responsible for the accident. The appellants/claimants
claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the death of
the deceased under various heads.
3. The contention of the petitioners was that as on the date of
accident the deceased was aged about 28 years and was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month by doing Gumastha work at Rashee Seeds,
Huzurabad. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their
dependency.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, the petition as against respondent
No.1 (driver of the Tata Lorry) was dismissed as not pressed. The
respondent No.2 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.3 - Sri Ram
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 Lorry Driver
was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident 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 learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads
as under:
i) Whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle i.e., TATA Lorry bearing No.AP-15-TB-8995?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for
and against whom?
iii) To what relief?
6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into
the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of
Rs.7,12,600/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.
7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation
amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on
the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the
petitioners/claimants, that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per
month by doing Gumastha work at Rashee Seeds, Huzurabad, the
learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-
per month and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair
compensation amount under other heads.
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
28 years and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month Gumastha work at
M/s.Rashee Seeds, Huzurabad. Learned counsel for the appellant
further contended that petitioner has filed Ex.A7 i.e., salary certificate of
the deceased, which was issued by PW2. The petitioners have examined
PW2 who claims to be the owner of Rashee Seeds, Huzurabad to show
that deceased was working in his company and PW2 used to pay
Rs.12,000/- salary per month to the deceased. At the time of cross-
examination, PW2 admitted that he has not maintained any salary
records though he claimed that he got two more employees working in
his office and used to pay income tax on behalf of the company.
However, the learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased
died due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Lorry, 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.3,000/- per month and also not awarded compensation under the
head of 'parental compensation' and 'filial compensation' as per the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram 1.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd 2, wherein in the absence of any income
prove, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the income of a 'coolie' as
Rs.4,500/- per month, however the learned Tribunal even without
considering the said judgment has taken the deceased income as
Rs.3,000/- which is very meager and prayed this Court to enhanced the
income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- in terms of the
2018 (18) SCC 130
1 (2011) 13 SCC 236
Ramachandrappa Judgment (cited supra) and pray this Court to
allow the present appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that after
considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal
has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.
11. Since, the claim against respondent No.1 (driver of the Tata Lorry)
was dismissed as not pressed on 28.11.2014 before the learned
Tribunal, notice to Respondent No.1 is dispensed with. None appear for
respondent No.2.
12. Heard Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners and Ms.Padmaja, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3- Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited. Perused
the material on record.
13. 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 No.1, age of the deceased and
accident. The only point arose before this Court in this appeal is that:
i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced
compensation, if so, to what extent?
Point No.1
14. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on
06.04.2013. The deceased was working as Gumastha at Rashee Seeds
Huzurabad. Ex.A7 is the salary certificate of the deceased which shows
that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. It is apparent
that except Ex.A7 and statement of PW2, there is no other documentary
proof such as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the
deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In the present
circumstances, it is just and proper to follow the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd 3, wherein the income of a deceased was
taken monthly as Rs.4,500/- per month in the absence of such
documentary proof with regard to income of the deceased and also
looked into the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 4 wherein it was held that even
when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be
reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by
the Courts.
1 (2011) 13 SCC 236
4 2001(8) SCC 197
15. 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.12,000/-
per month by doing by doing Gumastha work at Rashee Seeds,
Huzurabad, but the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly notional income
of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, which appears to be meager. Hence
considering the ground realities and following the judgment passed in
Ramachandrappa's case and Latha Wadhwa's case (cited supra),
the deceased who was hale and healthy obviously would earn Rs.150/-
per day and the monthly income of the deceased can be taken at
Rs.4,500/-. Hence, the deceased income can be notionally taken as
Rs.4,500/-. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
and others 5 and considering the age of the deceased as 28 years,
additional 40% 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 come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). The
annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,300/-
X 12) and, out of which, 1/4 has to be deducted towards the personal
5 2017 ACJ 2700
expenses of the deceased as the dependants are five in number. Then
the actual annual income would come to Rs.56,700/- (Rs.75,600/- (-)
Rs.18,900/-).
16. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the
Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 6, and
considering the age of the deceased as 28 years, the appropriate
multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '17'. Thus, the total loss
of dependency would come to Rs.9,63,900/- (56,700/- x 17).
17. 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).
18. 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).
19. As far as appellant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, who is son and
daughter of the deceased, the appellant Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head
of 'loss of parental consortium', as per Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram 7
20. Appellant Nos.3 and 4 being the mother of the deceased, the
appellant Nos.3 and 4 are entitled for compensation to a sum of
Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of 'loss of filial consortium'
as per Magma's Judgment (cited supra)
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."
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
2018 (18) SCC 130
23. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants
would be entitled to as follows:
i) Annual Income (of the deceased)
Rs.4,500/- X 12 = Rs.54,000/-
ii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) =
Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/- = Rs.75,600/-
iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/4
deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased
=
Rs.75,600/- (-) Rs.18,900/- = Rs.56,700/-
iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied
Multiplier = Rs.59,700/- x 17 = Rs.9,63,900/-
v) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads =
Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of
consortium + loss of filal consortium + Parental
Consortium = Rs.2,78,300/-
Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.96,800 +
96,800 =
Total Rs.12,42,200/-
24. Thus, the appellants/claimants are entitled to the enhanced
compensation of Rs.12,42,200/- as against the awarded amount of
Rs.7,12,600/- by the learned Tribunal.
25. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal
has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 9 % per annum and the same
needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion
that the petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest @ 9 % on the
enhanced amount.
26. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation
of Rs.12,42,200/-. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part,
enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,12,600/- to Rs. 12,42,200/-
(Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and Two Hundred rupees
only) with interest at the rate @ 9 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from
the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent Nos.2
and 3 are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and
interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of two months from the 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
learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
11.04.2025
SHA
