Telangana High Court

Ajmeera Kanthi vs K. Mallikarjun Rao on 17 April, 2025

                                 1



      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.210 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 03.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.381 of 2016 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District

Judge, Warangal (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For 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 was that the

deceased-Ratan Singh was going as a pillion rider on Honda

Unicorn Motorcycle bearing NBo.TS-03-EH-0935, when they

reached Old Poultry Form, Gopa Thanda, a Santro Car bearing

No.AP-36-H-7799 coming from behind in a rash and negligent

manner at a high speed, dashed their bike, as a result of which,

the deceased-Ratan Singh and the rider of the bike sustained

injuries and Ratan Singh died on the spot. Thus, claimants sought

a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 filed counter

denying the age, avocation and income of the deceased and further

contended that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and

negligence of the respondent No.1.

ETD,J MACMA No.210_2021

5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has also filed its

counter denying the material averments in the petition with regard

to the age, avocation and income of the deceased and has further

contended that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle i.e.,

respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving license as on the

date of the accident, and that their company is not liable to pay

any compensation. He has further contended that there is one day

delay in reporting the matter to the Police creating a doubt with

regard to the occurrence of the accident.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the accident occurred on 31.03.2015 was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Santro Car bearing No.Ap-36-H-7799?

2. Whether the policy was in force and valid on the date of accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent?

4. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the claimants got examined PW1 to 3

and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no

oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.R1 was marked.

ETD,J MACMA No.210_2021

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.10,16,000/-. Aggrieved by the said

compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal

seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the

appellants and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that

the future prospects have not been awarded by the Tribunal and

also that very low amount was awarded under the heads of loss of

consortium. Therefore, he prayed to consider the said two aspects

and enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted to

consider the principles laid down in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 1, by the Apex

Court, while considering the aspects of future prospects and loss of

consortium. He further brought it to the notice of this Court that

the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,16,000/-, while the

petitioners claimed only Rs.10,00,000/-.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.210_2021

12. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. If so, to what extent?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:

a) The grievance of the claimants is that the Tribunal has not

considered the addition of income towards future prospects. As per

the law laid down by National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi & Others 2, by the Apex Court, addition has to be

made with regard to future prospects, while computing the

compensation. In the present case, the deceased is stated to be an

agriculturist, having an extent of Ac.2-34 guntas and further he

used to take Ac.4-00 guntas on lease for doing agriculture and

that he used to grow commercial crops and earn Rs.2,40,000/- per

annum.

b) His age as revealed by the Post Mortem Report under Ex.P4

is "46" years and thus he is self-employed person, aged '46' years.

Therefore, the addition of 25% towards future prospects has to be

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.210_2021

made in his income. To prove the income of the deceased, the

petitioners got examined PW3 and also filed Adangal Pahanies

under Ex.P6. A perusal of Ex.P6 discloses that the deceased was

having Ac.1.34 guntas in Sy.No.338/C/2 and Ac.1-00 guntas in

Sy.No.355/A/3 of Peddanagaram Village.

c) PW3 deposed that he leased out his land to an extent of

Ac.4-00 guntas to the deceased for doing agriculture. Thus,

considering the evidence of PW3 and said factors that the deceased

was possessing Ac.2-34 guntas of agricultural land and that he

was into agriculture, the Tribunal has taken the income of the

deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, which appears to be justified

on a reasonable hypothesis.

d) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 3, 25% of the income needs to

be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 46

years, adding 25% towards future prospects i.e., 8,000+2000

would give Rs.10,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.10,000/- x

12 = Rs.1,20,000/- per annum.

AIR 2017 SCC 5157 ETD,J MACMA No.210_2021

e) The number of claimants herein are four and therefore, 1/4th

deduction need to be made to his income towards personal

expenses and this would come up to Rs.90,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- (-)

Rs.30,000/-).

f) 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 4. The deceased being aged 46

years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '13. Therefore,

the loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,70,000/-.

g) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss

of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and

the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.

h) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 5, 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, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each

towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount

2009 (6) SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.210_2021

under this head would be Rs.1,93,600/- instead of Rs.40,000/-.

Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded.

i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are

entitled is calculated as Rs.13,99,900/- while the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.10,16,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners

are entitled for enhancement of compensation.

Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2:

It is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be

modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court

has enhanced the compensation to Rs.13,99,900/- from that of

Rs.10,16,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3:

In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly

allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 03.03.2020 in

M.V.O.P.No.381 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.10,16,000/- to 13,99,900/- and the

enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the ETD,J MACMA No.210_2021

interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited. The appellants

shall pay the deficit Court fee. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 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

this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said

amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective

shares as allotted by the Tribunal. The judgment copy shall be

made available subject to the payment of deficit Court fee by the

appellants. No costs.