Telangana High Court
Smt.Md Sameena Begum And 3 Ors vs Sugavasi Vidyadhar And Anr on 6 February, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.63 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 19.10.2015
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the
learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter
will be referred as 'Tribunal") in O.P.No.512 of 2014, the
petitioners/claimants have filed the present Appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are that the petitioners, who are wife, daughter and parents of
"Mr.Mohammed Saddam Khan" (hereinafter will be referred as
'deceased'), have filed claim petition claiming compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death
of the deceased in the road traffic accident that occurred on
21.01.2014. The brief facts of the claim petition filed by the
petitioners, are as under:
MGP,J
a) On 24.01.2014 at about 11.00 AM the deceased was
proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 28 AT
1380 from Peddapuli Nagaram Village side towards Thattapali
Village and when he reached near Gajugutta of Ibrahimpally
Village, the driver of the Lorry bearing registration No. AP 94 Y
3978 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') drove the
same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle
of the deceased on wrong side. As a result, the deceased fell
down on the road and sustained injuries. Immediately he was
shifted to Osmania Hospital, wherein he succumbed to injuries.
c) A case in Crime No.19 of 2014 of Chevella Police Station
was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle for the
offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
d) Prior to the accident, the deceased used to do real estate
business, labour contract and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
The petitioners lost the support of the deceased. The accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of driver
of crime vehicle, which belongs to respondent No.1 and insured
with respondent No.2. The respondents being owner and
insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-.
MGP,J
4. In reply to the above claim application, the respondent
No.2 filed counter and whereas the respondent No.1 remained
exparte. The Respondent No.2 denied the petition averments
including the manner of accident, age, avocation, earnings. It
was further contended that they have verified with the data of
RTA website A.P. government of Cuddapah District but no data
is found, as such, it is clear that the driving license of the driver
was not issued. Further, the claim of the petitioner is excessive
and exorbitant. On the above grounds prayed to dismiss the
claim application.
5. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed
the following issues.
i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash
and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., lorry bearing
No. AP 04 Y 3978 cause death of Mohd. Saddam
Khan?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioner, PWs 1
to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of
respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1
(copy of insurance policy) was marked. The learned Tribunal
after considering the oral and documentary evidence on behalf
MGP,J
of both sides, awarded compensation of Rs.6,65,000/-.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal, the appellants/petitioners preferred the
present Appeal to enhance the compensation.
7. Heard Sri C. Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners, Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and
perused the record including the grounds of Appeal.
8. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.1 and 2
have not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order.
There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the
petitioners and deceased. There is also no dispute with regard
to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal by
relying on the oral evidence of PW2 (eyewitness to the accident)
coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 (FIR), A2
(charge sheet), A3 (inquest report), A4 (PME Report) and A5
(MVI Report), has arrived to a conclusion that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.
Further, there is also no dispute with regard to the subsistence
of the policy at the time of accident as evident from Ex.B1.
MGP,J
9. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that though the deceased was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month as electrician, the learned Tribunal has
considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month.
In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied
upon a decision of the High Court of Madras in Sagunthala
Perumal v. Bakkiyam, Manager, United India Insurance
Company Limited 1, wherein the salary of the deceased was
fixed at Rs.9,000/- by considering the deceased as "coolie".
10. The petitioners got examined PW3 to establish that the
deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing real
estate business and labour contract works. It is the specific
evidence of PW3 that he is also doing real estate business along
with the deceased. But in the cross examination, he admitted
that he has no proof to show that he is doing real estate
business. Thus, the oral evidence of PW3 cannot be considered
to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- by doing
real estate business and contract work. Moreover, as can be
seen Exs.A2 (charge sheet) and A3 (inquest report), the
occupation of the deceased was mentioned as 'coolie'. In these
circumstances, the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income
1 2020 Law Suit (Mad) 2388
MGP,J
of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- as coolie. But there is no basis for
the learned Tribunal to fix the monthly income of the deceased
at Rs.4,000/-. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court
relied upon by the claimants in Sagunthala Perumal's case
(supra) pertains to the accident that occurred in the year 2015
and whereas the accident in the present Appeal pertains to the
year 2014. Hence, the facts in Sagunthala Perumal's case
(supra) are different from the facts of the present case, as such,
the principle laid down in the said decision cannot be made
applicable to the facts of the present case.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, by relying
on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Limited 2 this Court is inclined to consider
the monthly income of the deceased, who is a 'coolie', at
Rs.4,500/- per month.
12. As seen from the record, the petitioners have mentioned
the age of the deceased as 25 years in the claim petition. Even
as per Exs.A2, A3 and A4, the age of the deceased was
mentioned as 25 years. However, a perusal of the impugned
2 2011 (2) An.W.R. 988 (SC)
MGP,J
order discloses that the learned Tribunal without discussing
anything on the aspect of the age of the deceased, stated that
the multiplier '17' is applicable. But as per the principle laid
down in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3, the
appropriate multiplier for the persons between the age group of
21 to 25 years is '18' but not '17'. Thus, the learned Tribunal
erred in fixing a wrong multiplier while calculating the quantum
of compensation.
13. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the learned Tribunal has not considered the
aspect of future prospects while calculating the compensation.
Since the deceased was aged below 40 years and self employed,
he is entitled for future prospects @ 40% as per the decision laid
down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi and others 4. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased
with future prospects comes to Rs.6,300/- per annum
(Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). Since, the dependents are four in
number, 1/4th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted
(2009) 6 SCC 121
4 2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
from income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and
thereby the annual income of the deceased after deducting
personal expenses comes to Rs.4,725/- (Rs.6,300/- -
Rs.1,575/-) and the annual income of the deceased comes to
Rs.56,700/- (4,725/- x 12 months). As stated supra, the
relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '18'. When the
annual salary of the deceased after deducting his personal
expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to
Rs.10,20,600/- (Rs.56,700/- x 18). Thus, the loss of
dependency on account of sudden demise of deceased is
Rs.10,20,600/-.
14. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
estate, Rs.10,000/- towards love and affection, Rs.6,000/-
towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium.
However, as per the principle laid down in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 5, the
claimant/petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the
conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon)
towards loss of estate (Rs.15,000/-), loss of consortium
(Rs.40,000/-) and funeral expenses (Rs.15,000/-). Further, the
5 2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
petitioner No.2 being the minor of the deceased is entitled for
parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- as per the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance
Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram 6. Though
the claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, in
Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and another 7,
the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the amount of
compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High
Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found
to be just and reasonable. Thus, the claimants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.11,37,600/- (Rs.10,20,600/- + Rs.77,000/-
+ Rs.40,000/-).
15. The learned Tribunal permitted the petitioner No.1 to
withdraw Rs.1,65,000/- out of the compensation of
Rs.3,65,000/- awarded by it and directed the amount awarded
to the minor petitioner No.2 to be deposited in any nationalized
bank until the minor attains the age of majority. It is pertinent
to note that by this day the time frame fixed by the learned
Tribunal with regard to the deposit of part of compensation
amount in any nationalized bank, has already been completed
and the purpose for which the learned Tribunal has passed
6 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904
7 2024 INSC 777
MGP,J
such direction might have been fulfilled. Thus, this Court feels
it appropriate to apportion the compensation arrived by this
Court in the following proportion:
Sl.No. Description of the party Amount
1. Petitioner No.1 (wife of the deceased) Rs.5,00,000/-
2. Petitioner No.2 (daughter of the deceased) Rs.4,37,600/-
3. Petitioner No.3 (mother of the deceased) Rs.1,00,000/-
4. Petitioner No.4 (father of the deceased) Rs.1,00,000/-
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that impugned order passed by the
learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of
above observations.
17. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.6,65,000/- to Rs.11,37,600/-,
which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing the claim application till the date of realization. The
respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the
compensation amount within two months from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner
Nos.1, 3 and 4 are entitled to withdraw the entire amount
awarded to them in the proportion as stated supra without
furnishing any security subject to payment of deficit court fee
MGP,J
on the enhanced compensation, which is beyond the amount
claimed by the petitioners. Further, the amount awarded to the
petitioner No.2 is ordered to be deposited in any nationalized
bank until the minor attains the age of majority. Further, the
petitioner No.1, who is the natural guardian/mother of
petitioner No.2, is permitted to withdraw accrued interest on the
deposited amount once in six months, enabling the petitioner
No.1 to meet the day to day expenses of the minor. There shall
be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date:06.02.2025
AS
