Telangana High Court

Gangaboina Sai Krishna vs Challa Koteswara Rao on 7 February, 2025

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                        M.A.C.M.A.No.525 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the

Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam, (hereinafter referred to

'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.343 of 2017, dated 26.12.2019.

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

earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.343 of 2017 under Section 166 of the

M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased

i.e., mother of the appellants/claimants, who died in the accident

alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of the

JCB driver while demolishing the compound wall. Learned counsel

for the appellants/claimants submits that, on 25.12.2015 at about

04.00 p.m., the deceased was standing near the compound wall,

however, the driver of the JCB without taking proper care

demolished the compound wall resulting which the compound wall

fell on the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. The Police

registered a case, vide Crime No.291/2015, under Section 304(A) of

IPC against the driver and owner of the JCB. The

appellants/claimants claimed Rs.10,00,000/- for the above death

of the deceased under various heads, as compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 (owner of JCB) and

respondent No.2 (Driver of the JCB) remained exparte. Respondent

No.3 filed a counter-affidavit denying all the allegations made in the

petition.

4. After going into the entire material placed on record and the

evidences placed by both the parties, the Tribunal allowed the

claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- along

with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

5. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by

the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed assailing the same on

the ground that deceased was working as coolie and earning

Rs.9,000/- per month, but the Tribunal without considering the

deceased occupation has fixed the income of the deceased at

Rs.4,000/- per month which is meager and the same is

contrary to law, evidence on record. The Tribunal has not

awarded interest from 13.03.2019 to 26.12.2019 on the

compensation awarded is without any reason and the Tribunal

ought to have awarded interest since the date of petition to its

realization and further argued that the Tribunal ought not have

computed the payment of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which is

paid by the owner of the neighbor house.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further

contended that the Tribunal has examined the PW2 who is eye-

witness to the accident and come to conclusion that accident

occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of the

JCB and also due to account of lack of forewarning. However,

while granting compensation to the appellants/claimants, the

Tribunal has failed to follow the guidelines of the High Court

and Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as settled legal position.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied on the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance

General Insurance Comp. Ltd vs Shashi Sharma & Ors 1

regarding payment of amounts as ex-gratia.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would further

submit that without any basis, the Tribunal fixed the deceased's

AIR 2016 SC 446

total income as Rs.5,000/- per month, on the ground that the

appellants/claimants have not produced the Income Certificate of

the deceased and further contended that the Tribunal has not

awarded just compensation under different heads; and therefore,

the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and

unjustifiable.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submits

that after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal

has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in

which the accident took place has become final, as the respondents

did not choose to challenge the same.

10. The only point arises in this appeal is only with regard to the

monthly income of the deceased and the entitlement of enhanced

compensation, as the respondent have not raised any objection

with regard to age, avocation of the deceased or the place of the

accident

11. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident and the

deceased was aged about 45 years as per postmortem report

(Ex.A4). PW2, who is the eye-witness to the accident has narrated

the incident before the Tribunal. The evidence of eye witness

coupled with findings of final investigation clearly establishes rash

and negligence on the part of the driver of the JCB. Since, deceased

was self-employed and working as 'coolie, the claimants could not

produced the Income certificate to substantiate her claim. In this

regard, it is imperative to look into the settled law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 2

held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the

income can be reasonably estimated and assessed regarding the

ground realities.

12. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

and for considering the quantum of compensation, it is necessary

to ascertain the actual income of the deceased. The

appellants/claimants stated that the deceased was earning

Rs.9,000/- per month by doing coolie, but the Tribunal fixed the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-, which is very

meager and in the absence of any proof of income, considering the

deceased age as 45 years and deceased avocation as coolie. It is not

2001(8) SCC 197

in dispute that deceased was working as coolie. Hence considering

the ground realities and that the women of age of 45 years who is

hale and health would obviously would earn Rs.250/- per day and

the monthly income would be Rs.7,500/-. Hence, the deceased

income can be notionally taken as Rs.7,500/-. 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 45 years, additional 25% of the income

would be added towards future prospect to the monthly income of

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

come to Rs.9,375/- (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.1,875/-). The annual income

of the deceased would come to Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.9,375/- X 12)

and, out of which, 1/3 has to be deducted towards the personal

expenses of the deceased as the dependants are two in number.

Then the actual annual income would come to Rs.75,000/-

(Rs.1,12,500/- (-) Rs.37,500/-). As per the column No.4 of

schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4, and the age of the deceased

being 45 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

deceased's age is '14'. Thus, the total loss of dependency would

come to Rs.10,50,000/- (75,000/- x 14).

13 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 (supra).

14. Further, considering the fact that appellants/claimants being

son and daughter of the deceased is entitled to a sum of

Rs.48,400/- each i.e., to a sum of Rs.96,800/- (2 x 48,400) towards

loss of parental consortium, as per Pranay Sethi (supra).

15. As rightly held by the Tribunal, that Rs.1,00,000/- was

received by the appellants/claimants from the owner of the

compound wall (house owner) and not paid by the owner of the

vehicle. Therefore, there is no obligation on the part of respondent

No.3 to reimburse such amount to the owner of the house, hence

Rs.1,00,000/- will be deducted from the compensation amount and

the judgment which is relied upon by the appellants in National

Insuance Co.Ltd v. Bindender and others 5 is of not much help to

2020 (2) ALD 14 (SC)

the appellants as the facts being totally different with that of the

present case on hand, I do not see any error committed by the

Tribunal in deducting the said amount as the said amount are

received consequent to the said accident which led to fatality of the

deceased.

16. 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."

17. 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 definite opinion that the

claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified

and recalculated as above and given in the table for easy reference

18. Considering the above assessment made by this Court,

appellants would be entitled to as follows:

i)     Annual Income (of the deceased)
       Rs.7,500/- X 12   =   Rs.90,000/-

ii)     Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
        Prospects (Annual Income X 25%) =
        Rs.90,000/- + Rs.22,500/-      =       Rs.1,12,500/-

iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,12,500/- (-) Rs.37,500/- = Rs.75,000/-

iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.75,000/- x 14 = Rs.10,50,000/-

v) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + + Parental Consortium = Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.96,800/- = Rs.1,33,100/-

                              Total:                            Rs.11,83,100

vi)    Already amount received by appellant                     (-) 1,00,003/-

       Total                                                   Rs.10,83,097/-

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

compensation of Rs.10,83,097/- as against the awarded amount of

Rs.4,90,000/- by the Tribunal.

20. Considering the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has

rightly awarded the rate of interest at 7.5 % per annum and the

same needs no interference by this Court. Except coming to the

aspect of disallowing of the interest for the period of 13.03.2019 to

26.12.2019, as seen from the Award there is no reason cited why

the said interest part for the said period was disallowed. In the

absence of any reason, the same has to be restored back. Hence,

this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for interest

for the said period.