Telangana High Court

Kora Koteshwaramma And 5 Others vs Tnirumala Vijaya And 2 Others on 17 April, 2025

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.640 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the

Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-XXVI Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

(hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.112 of 2018,

dated 30.11.2019, wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim

petition, seeking compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- on account of death of

1st petitioner husband, namely Sri Sheshaiah, (herein after referred to

as 'the deceased') who died in accident occurred on 10.11.2017.

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

filed M.V.O.P.No.112 of 2018 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

lorry driver. It is contended that on 10.11.2017, the deceased was

proceeding on his two wheeler TVS Xcel bearing No.AP-27-7498 and

when he reached at the outskirts of Marichetlapalem Village, the driver

of the Lorry bearing No.AP-27-X-1818 drive the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed came from rear side and dashed to

the deceased motorcycle from backside, as a result, the deceased fell

down on the ground and the lorry ran over the head of the deceased, as

such and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and the deceased

died on the spot. The Police registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2017

under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of

offending vehicle and seized the said lorry. The appellants/claimants

claimed an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- as compensation for the death of

the deceased under various heads.

3. The contention of the claimants/appellants before the Tribunal,

was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 40

years and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by working as skilled

worker in Granite Factory and also used to attend other works after the

shift of the deceased from the factory, including agricultural labour on

all Sundays. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their

dependency.

Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the lorry

and respondent No.3-driver of the lorry remained ex-parte. Respondent

No.2 - M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited, file 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 driver of the lorry offending lorry

bearing No.AP-27-X-1818 as well as the deceased who was rider TVS

Xcel bearing No.AP-27-X-7498 were both not holding valid driving

license at the time of accident and the said vehicles were not road

worthy to ply and further contended that the compensation claimed is

excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. 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 deceased Kora Sheshaiah S/o NBagaiah died on 10.11.2017 in a road accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.AP-27-X-1818?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

5. 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.13,93,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

6. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount

awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the

ground that the deceased was aged 40 years at the date of accident and

working as skilled/technical worker in granite cutting industry in

Cheemakurthi as well as working as mason and also agricultural labour

in evening hours daily, and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month, but

the learned Tribunal did not consider the above averments and fixed the

income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- and the learned Tribunal has not

awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads.

7. 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. In cross Examination, PW1 to PW4

were examined and Exhibits A.1 to A.12 were marked. Learned counsel

further contended that PW1 is the wife of the deceased narrated the

whole incident, but she is not eye-witness. PW2-Sri E.Koteswar Rao,

who is known person to the deceased worked along with the deceased in

the granites industry deposed that the income of the deceased would be

Rs.300/- to 350/- per day. PW3-Sri Akula Srinivasa Rao, who is also a

casual labour in the Granite factory where the deceased worked deposed

that PW3 and deceased used to earn Rs.600/- per 8 hours by working

in the Granite Factory.

8. It is further contended that deceased was having technical talent

i.e., cutting, polishing, loading and unloading , laying of granites and

also the deceased would transport the granites in and around surround

areas for which he used to earn extra income and in total, deceased

would earned Rs.800/- per day. Besides the above ground, it is

contended that the learned Tribunal did not consider the agricultural

income, where the petitioner was having agriculture land to an extent of

Ac-2.0½ Gts and earn extra income from the agricultural land and also

by attending agricultural work. Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 is the pattadar

passbook which shows the name of the deceased as owner of the said

agricultural land. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that

deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of 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.7,000/- per month and also not awarded just compensation under

the various head as per as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and

others 1.

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

considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal

has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

10. None appear for respondent No.1 & 3.

11. Heard Sri Chandraiah Somavarapu, learned counsel for the

appellants/petitioners and Sri V.Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel

for the respondent No.2 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Perused

the material on record.

12. 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 respondents, 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?

1 2017 ACJ 2700

Point No.1:

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

10.11.2017. The deceased was worker in Granite cutting industry in

Cheemakurthi. There is no salary certificate of the deceased which

shows that the deceased was earning Rs.350/- to Rs.800/- per day as

claimed by the appellants and also there is no other documentary proof

such as relevant account books or bank entries to show that the

deceased was earning Rs.24,000/- per month. But looking at the

records available and the averments made by both the learned counsels

before this Court, it is evident that the deceased was a worker and

having technical skill i.e., cutting of granites, polishing granites and

laying of granites and in the case of Latha Wadhwa vs. State of

Bihar 2 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.

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.30,000/-

per month by working in the Granite Factory and other miscellaneous

2 2001(8) SCC 197

and agricultural work and learned Tribunal fixed the monthly notional

income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-, which appears to be meager.

Hence considering the ground realities and also the fact that deceased

was a skilled worker working in Granite Cutting factory and aged about

40 years at the date of accident and also following the law laid down in

the judgment passed in Latha Wadhwa's case (cited supra), this

Court is of the opinion that the deceased would obviously earn Rs.300/-

per day, accordingly, the deceased income can be notionally taken at

Rs.9,000/- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and others 3 and considering the age of the deceased as 40 years,

additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects

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

the deceased would come to Rs.12,600/- (Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/-). The

annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,51,200/-

(Rs.12,600/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/4 has to be deducted towards

the personal expenses of the deceased as there are six dependants in

number. Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.1,13,400/-

(Rs.1,51,200/- (-) Rs.37,800/-) for assessing the compensation.

3 2017 ACJ 2700

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

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation 4, and considering the age of the deceased as 40 years, the

appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '15'. Thus,

the total loss of dependency to the petitioner would come to

Rs.17,01,000/- (1,51,200/- x 15).

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 spousal consortium' as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment (cited

supra).

18. Appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4 being children of the deceased, the

appellant Nos.2, 3 & 4 are entitled for compensation to a sum of

Rs.1,45,200/- (Rs.48,400 x 3) under the head of 'loss of parental

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

consortium', as per Magma General Insurance Company Limited

Vs.Nanu Ram alis Chuhru Ram 5

19. Appellant Nos.5 and 6 being the parents of the deceased, the

appellant Nos.5 and 6 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)

20. 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."

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

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

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

enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above

and given in the table for easy reference

2018 (18) SCC 130

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

would be entitled to as follows:

i)     Annual Income (of the deceased)
       Rs.9,000/- X 12   =   Rs.1,08,000/-

ii)     Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
        Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) =
        Rs.1,08,000/- + Rs.43,200/-      =    Rs.1,51,200/-

iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,51,200/- (-) Rs.37,800/- = Rs.1,13,400/-

iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.1,13,400/- x 15 = Rs.17,01,000/-

v) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of spousal consortium + loss of filal consortium + Parental Consortium = Rs.3,26,700/-

       Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 +
       Rs.1,45,200 + 96,800 =

       Total                                                  Rs.20,27,700/-

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

compensation of Rs.20,27,700/- as against the awarded amount of

Rs.13,93,000/- by the learned Tribunal.

24. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal

has rightly awarded the rate of interest i.e., at 7.5 % per annum, which

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

petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5 % on the enhanced

amount.

25. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part. The claimants are

entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.20,27,700/-, enhancing

the compensation from Rs. 13,93,000/- to Rs. 20,27,700/- (Rupees

Twenty Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand and Seven Hundred rupees only)