Telangana High Court
Smt. Kasam Umadevi , Umarani And 2 Others vs The New India Assurance Company Limited ... on 10 February, 2025
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.15 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- I Additional District Judge,
Nizamabad (for short, the Tribunal) in O.P.No.516 of 2001, dated
17.11.2006 (as amended vide orders dated 23.03.2007 in I.A.497
of 2007), the claim petitioners in the said O.P. preferred the
present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioners, who
are the wife and children of Late Kasam Mohan Reddy (hereinafter
referred as the deceased), filed a petition under Section 166 (1)(c)
and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of
A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on
account of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident
that occurred on 01.01.2000 at about 10.15 a.m. on N.H.7, near
T.V.Tower Kamareddy town. It is stated by the petitioners that on
01.01.2000, when the deceased as a pillion rider was travelling
along with his friend on Suzuki Motorcycle bearing No.AP-25E-
7799 and were proceeding from Nizamabad to Vemulawada and
MGP,J
when reached near T.V.Tower at Kamareddy town on N.H.7 road at
about 10.15 a.m., a TVS Champ Moped bearing No.AP-25C-4224
came from opposite direction at a high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a
result, the deceased fell down and received severe Head injury and
injuries to other parts of the body. Immediately, the deceased was
shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy, from there, he was
referred to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and he succumbed to
injuries while undergoing treatment.
4. It is stated by the petitioners that the deceased was aged
about 40 years and was hale and healthy and was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month through Dairy Farm and Rs.2,00,000/- per
annum through agriculture. Due to the accident, the petitioners
lost their bread winner and were finding difficult to eke out their
livelihood and hence filed claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- against the respondents.
5. Respondent Nos.2 & 4, who are the owners of TVS Champ
bearing No.AP-25C-4224 and Motorcycle bearing No.AP-25E-7799,
remained ex-parte.
6. Respondent Nos.1 & 3/New India Assurance Company rep.
by its Branch Manager and Divisional Manager filed its counter
MGP,J
denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age,
avocation, income, rash and negligent driving of TVS Champ
moped and contended that the claim of compensation is excess
and exorbitant and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
7. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the
learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for trial:-
1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent
driving of the TVS Champ Moped bearing No.AP-25C-4224
driven by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and against which of the
respondents?
3. To what relief?
8. In order to prove the above issues, on behalf of the
petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A15 were
marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was
adduced; however Exs.B1 & B2 were marked with consent.
9. After considering the entire evidence and documents
available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the
claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.5,36,000/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization payable by all the respondents jointly and severally
within one month from the date of order.
MGP,J
10. Having not satisfied with the said compensation amount, the
claim petitioners filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of
the same.
11. Heard arguments submitted by Sri S.Surender Reddy,
learned counsel representing Sri V.Tulasi Reddy, learned counsel
for the appellants/petitioners and Sri P.Harinath Gupta, learned
Standing counsel representing Respondent No.3/Insurance
Company. Perused the record including grounds of Appeal.
12. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellants as
stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunal ought
to have taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.6,000/- per month
and calculate the compensation. It also failed to consider the oral
and documentary evidence available on record and awarded
meager compensation and hence prayed to allow the Appeal by
enhancing the compensation amount.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
& 3/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal,
after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable
compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
MGP,J
14. Now the point that arises for determination is,
Whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation amount?
POINT:-
15. Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident and
liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at by the
Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no
necessity to again delve into the said aspects. This Appeal has
been filed by the claim petitioners only with regard to enhancement
of compensation.
16. A perusal of the quantum of compensation in the impugned
judgment shows that the Tribunal assessed the income of the
deceased @ Rs.4,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards
personal expenses, applied relevant multiplier and calculated loss
of earnings @ Rs.5,12,000/-. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal
also granted a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses,
Rs.5,000/- towards consortium and Rs.17,000/- towards medical
expenses and transportation which ultimately arrived at a total
compensation of Rs.5,36,000/-
17. As far as income of the deceased is concerned, though
petitioner No.1 stated that her husband used to earn Rs.15,000/-
per month by doing milk business and Rs.2,00,000/- per annum
MGP,J
by cultivating agricultural land, but they failed to file any
documentary proof showing that the deceased used to do milk
business, except the letter issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat,
Mallaram under Ex.A13, however the said certificate has not been
taken into consideration as it was issued in his private capacity.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal considering the date of accident
and age of the deceased, assessed his monthly income @
Rs.4,000/- which this Court finds reasonable and is not inclined to
interfere with the same. Since the Tribunal failed to award future
prospects to the income of the deceased, this Court, by relying
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others 1 , hereby add 40% towards future prospects to the
established income of the deceased for the deceased being below 40
years at the time of accident. Then the net future monthly income
comes to Rs.5,600/-. Since the number of dependants are '3', if
1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then
the net monthly income comes to Rs.3,733/-. The age of the
deceased as per inquest and post-mortem reports was 36 years.
Hence, considering the same, the appropriate multiplier is '15' as
per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v.
2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
Delhi Transport Corporation 2. Therefore, the total loss of income
on account of the death of the deceased comes to Rs.6,71,940/-.
Further, the petitioners were awarded with a sum of Rs.2,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
consortium which this Court finds it to be meager and hereby
enhances the same to Rs.77,000/- by relying upon the Judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs.Pranay Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 2700). Thus the appellants
are entitled for a total compensation as detailed below:-
S.No. Name of the Head Amount Amount
awarded by awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1. Monthly income Rs.4,000/- -
2. Addition of 40% towards - Rs.5,600/-
future prospects
3. Loss of earnings arrived Rs.5,12,000/- Rs.6,71,940/-
after deduction of 1/3rd
towards personal expenses
and applying multiplier
4. Funeral expenses Rs.2000/- Rs.77,000/-
5. Loss of consortium Rs.5,000/-
6. Medical & Transportation Rs.17,000/-
charges
7. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5,36,000/- Rs.7,65,940/-
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.15 of 2008 is partly- allowed by
enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal from
Rs.5,36,000/- to Rs.7,65,940/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable
by all the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. Upon such deposit, the appellants are entitled to
withdraw the same as per the apportionment made by the learned
Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.10.02.2025
ysk
