Telangana High Court
Chimata Lilavathi And Another vs Goram Manga Rao And 3 Others on 29 April, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.386 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order
and Decree dated 05.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.799 of 2015 passed by
the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional
District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (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 claimants before the Tribunal was that on
30.06.2015 at about 9:30 p.m., the deceased-Chimata Suresh
Kumar was going on his motor bike bearing No.AP-20-B-733 as
pillion rider to Ramanagudem from Aswaraopet and when they
reached the outskirts of Aswaraopet Village, the motor bike bearing
No.AP-04-AU-3910 coming at a high speed in a rash and negligent
manner from the opposite direction, dashed the motor bike of the
deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and received
grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Government
Hospital at Aswaraopet, where he succumbed to injuries. It is their
case that the deceased was aged about 26 years and was working
as a Diesel Mechanic in ITC Paper Mill and was earning an amount
ETD,J
MACMA No.386_2021
of Rs.12,000/- per month. They sought a compensation of
Rs.12,00,000/-.
4. The respondents No.1 to 3 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.4 filed counter denying the averments
with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and
income of the deceased. They further contended that the driver of
the crime vehicle did not possess a valid driving license as on the
date of the accident and that the Insurance Company is not liable
to pay any compensation. They further contended that the petition
is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motor bike on
which the deceased was travelling.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for consideration:-
1. Whether the deceased-Chimata Suresh Kumar
died due to the injuries sustained by him in the
road accident on 30.06.2015 due to the rash or
negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e.,
motorcycle bearing No.AP-04-AU-3910?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation. If so, from which respondent ?
3. To what relief ?
7. To prove their case, the claimants got examined PW1 and 2
and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1
was examined and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked.
ETD,J
MACMA No.386_2021
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.9,37,200/-. Aggrieved by the said order and
decree, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.
9. Heard the submissions of Sri C.M.Prakash, learned counsel
for the appellants.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
the order and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the
Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation. He further
argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record
in a proper perspective and has taken the income of the deceased
to be very low as Rs.6,000/- per month, while the evidence
adduced proves that the deceased used to earn Rs.12,000/- per
month. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded meagre
amounts under various heads and has also made a deduction of
50% which is bad in law. He further submitted that the Tribunal
has granted only 7% per annum as interest, while the Courts are
granting 7.5% per annum.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has
submitted that no proof of income and avocation was filed before
the Tribunal and that with regard to loss of consortium, the
principles laid down by the Apex Court may be considered.
ETD,J
MACMA No.386_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 appellants is that the Tribunal has
awarded very low amount of compensation. PW1 asserted that the
deceased used to work as a Diesel Mechanic in ITC Paper Mill and
was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. To prove their case, they have
not filed any other document in support of the same.
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. In the said
case, the accident occurred in 2004 and the deceased was a
labourer in the present case. In the present case, the accident
occurred in the year 2015 and the deceased is stated to be Diesel
Mechanic Thus, on a reasonable hypothesis, the income of the
deceased is taken as Rs.8,000/- per month.
(2011) 12 SCC 236
ETD,J
MACMA No.386_2021
c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, 40% of the income needs to
be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 25
years, adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., 8,000+3,200
would give Rs.11,200/- per month, which comes to Rs.11,200/- x
12 = Rs.1,34,400/- per annum.
d) The deceased is a bachelor and therefore, 50% deduction
need to be made towards personal expenses and this would come
up to Rs.67,200/- (Rs.1,34,400 x 50/100).
e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A4
reveals the age of the deceased as 25 years. Therefore, the age as
revealed under Ex.A4 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 25 years, the
appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore, the loss of
dependency is calculated as Rs.12,09,600/- (67,200 x 18).
f) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss
of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
2009 (6) SCC 121
ETD,J
MACMA No.386_2021
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and
the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.
g) 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, the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each
towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount
under this head would be Rs.96,800/- 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.
h) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are
entitled is calculated as Rs.13,42,700/- while the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.9,37,200/-. Hence, it is opined that the petitioners are
entitled for enhancement of compensation.
Thus, 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
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA No.386_2021
has enhanced the compensation to Rs.13,42,700/- from that of
Rs.9,37,200/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.
It is further observed that the rate of interest granted by the
Tribunal is 7% per annum, while this Court has been awarding
7.5% uniformly in all the cases. Therefore, the same rate of interest
is awarded in this case also.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
15. POINT NO.3:
In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimants is partly
allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 05.01.2021 in
M.V.O.P.No.799 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District, enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,37,200/- to
13,42,700/- 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 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.
ETD,J
MACMA No.386_2021
The judgment copy shall be made available subject to the payment
of deficit Court fee by the appellants. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 29.04.2025
ds
