Telangana High Court
M. Shiva Kumar vs T.S.R.T.C. on 7 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.546 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against
the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-Cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil
Court Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to 'Tribunal') in
M.V.O.P.No.2212 of 2017, dated 09.01.2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants
earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.2212 of 2017 under Section 166 of the
M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the
deceased i.e., father of the appellants/claimants, who died in the
accident alleged to have occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of RTC bus driver bus bearing registration No.AP-22-Z-
0028. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits
that, on 05.07.2017 at about 08.00 a.m., the deceased was
proceeding from Santosh Nagar to L.B.Nagar on Honda Shine
with Motorcycle Registration No.AP-09-WBTR 6656 and when
the deceased reached APR Gardens, Champapet, the driver of
the RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-22-Z-0028 drove the
said bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased
vehicle due to which, the deceased sustained severe injuries.
Thereafter, deceased was shifted to Sai Krishna Neuro Hospital,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad for treatment. Unfortunately the
deceased succumbed to injuries on 07.07.2017. The Police
registered a case, vide Crime No.457/2017, against the bus
driver under Section 337 of IPC. The appellants/claimants
claimed Rs.20,00,000/- for the above said accident, as
compensation.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondents filed a counter
affidavit and submit that they are unaware of the
relationship of the appellants/claimants with the deceased,
the age, occupation and income of the deceased on the date
of accident and further contended the compensation claimed
was excessive.
4. After hearing both sides and going into the merits of the
case and evaluating the entire evidences on record, the Tribunal
allowed the M.V.O.P in part and granted compensation of
Rs.8,51,158/- under the following heads, which is extracted
hereunder along with 9% interest per annum from the date of
petition till date of realization as below.
i) Loss of dependency Rs.5,79,150/-
ii) Medical expenditure incurred Rs.2,02,008/-
iii) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
iv) Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
v) Loss of parental consortium Rs.40,000/-
Total Rs.8,51,158/-
5. Aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that
deceased was doing goldsmith work along with other
business and earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but the
Tribunal without considering the deceased occupation has
fixed the income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month
which is meager and the same is contrary to law, evidence on
record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants further
contended that appellant No.1 was examined as PW1 and
Ex.A1 to A8 were marked in evidence before the Tribunal and
the Tribunal while appreciation of the evidence on record
came to conclusion that appellants/claimants have
established that due to the rash and negligent driving of RTC
bus by the driver, the accident occurred and the deceased
succumbed to injuries on 07.07.2017. 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 well settled legal
position. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants relied
on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Smt.Kalavati and ors. Vs.Mirza Kaisar Baig and
Anothers 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph
Nos.2.3 and 4 and considered the income of driver-deceased
therein, as Rs.10,000/- and the relevant paragraph Nos.2.3
and 4 reads as under:
"2.3. The learned Tribunal awarded the amount of
compensation. for the death of the deceased at
Rs.10,70,000/ under different heads including the-
loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal considered
the 'loss of dependency at Rs.9,00,000/considering
the income of the deceased at Rs:7,500/per month. By
the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
enhanced the loss of dependency to
Rs.14,28,120/considering the income of the deceased
at Rs.8,500/per month.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case
Air Online 2022 SC 4609
and considering the material on record and considering
the fact that the deceased were having driving license
and were working as drivers, the claimants shall be
entitled to the loss of dependency considering the
income of the deceased at atleast as Rs.10,000/- per
month. Thereafter adding 40% towards future
prospects and rise in income and applying the relevant
multiplier the claimants shall be entitled to the
enhanced amount of compensation."
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would
further submit that without considering the same, the Tribunal
fixed the deceased's total income as Rs.6,500/- 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 and the liability of the
respondents has become final, as the respondents did not
choose to challenge the same.
10. The only point that arouse before this Court, in this appeal
is only with regard to the income of the deceased, 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 succumbed to injuries due to
accident as on the date of the accident. The deceased was aged
about 58 years as per postmortem report (Ex.A3). PW1, who is
wife of the deceased claims that the deceased was earning
20,000/- per month, since deceased was self-employed and
working as 'goldsmith', she 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 there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be
reasonably estimated.
12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the appellants/claimants stated that the deceased
was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing goldsmith work,
2001(8) SCC 197
but the Court below fixed the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.6,500/-, which appears to be very meager and in the absence
of any proof of income, considering the deceased age as 58 years,
and the year of accident was occurred on 2017 and deceased
avocation being a goldsmith. Considering the ground realities,
the deceased income can notionally at Rs.10,000/- p.m.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month. Apart from that, as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3 and
considering the age of the deceased as 58 years, additional 10%
of the income would be added towards future prospects to the
monthly income of the deceased and therefore the monthly
income of the deceased would come to Rs.11,000/- (Rs.10,000/-
+ Rs.1,000/-). The annual income of the deceased would be
Rs.1,32,000/- (Rs.11,000/- X 12).
13. As there are four claimants as such, 1/4 has to be
deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased out of
the salary component. Then the annual income of the deceased
would come to Rs.99,000/- (Rs.1,32,000/- (-) Rs.33,000/-). As
2017 ACJ 2700
per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the
Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4,
the appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '9',
then, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.8,91,000/-
(99,000/- x 9). 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.
14 Further, considering the fact that appellants/claimants
being sons and daughter of the deceased, Hence they are entitled
to a sum of Rs.48,400/- each i.e., to a sum of Rs.1,93,600/- (4 x
48,400) towards parental consortium, as per Pranay Sethi
(supra).
15. The appellants/claimants have incurred medical
expenditure of Rs.2,02,008/- for the treatment of the deceased
after the accident and the same was recorded as per Ex.A8 and
the Tribunal has also considered and granted the same and the
same is neither questioned nor disputed by respondents under
this appeal or any cross appeal is filed. Hence, this Court is also
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
inclined to grant Rs.2,02,008/- towards medical expenditure
incurred by the appellants.
16. Considering the above assessment made by this Court,
appellants would be entitled to the compensation as follows:
i) Annual Income (of the deceased)
Rs.10,000/- X 12 = Rs.1,20,000/-
iii) Total Annual Income = Annual Income +
Future Prospects (Annual Income X 10%) =
Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.12,000/- =
Rs.1,32,200/-
iv) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income -
1/4 deduction towards personal expenses of
the deceased =
Rs.1,32,200/- (-) Rs.33,000/- =
Rs.99,000/-
v) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x
Applied Multiplier = Rs.99,000/- x 9 = Rs.8,91,000/-
vi) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional
heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses +
+ Parental Consortium =
Rs.2,29,900/-
Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.1,93,600/-
v) Medical Expenditure 2,02,008/-
Total Rs.13,22,908/-
17. As per the calculation/assessment made by this Court, the
claimants actually entitled for a total sum of Rs.13,22,908, as
against compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.8,51,158.
Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation
of Rs. Rs.13,22,908/-.
18. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed,
enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,51,158/- to
Rs.13,22,908/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Two thousand
and and Nine Hundred and Eight Rupees only) with interest at
the rate of 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of
petition till the date of realization.
19. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount
together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the
amount already deposited, if any, within two months from
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount
shall be apportioned among the appellants/claimants in the
same manner and ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. There shall
be no order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
07.02.2025
SHA
