Telangana High Court

Vasantha And 2 Ors vs G.Venkatramulu And 2 Ors on 13 February, 2025

         HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.2066 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the

learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - III Additional

District Judge (F.T.C.), Mahabubnagar at Gadwal (for short, the

Tribunal), in O.P.No.522 of 2007, dated 30.07.2010, the claim

petitioners in the said O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be

referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are

the wife and children of Late Chinna Veeranna Goud

(hereinafter be referred as 'the deceased'), filed a petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of

A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 read with Section 140 of M.V.Act, 1989

claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the

deceased-Chinna Veeranna Goud in a motor vehicle accident

that took place on 02.12.2003. It is stated by the petitioners

that on 02.12.2003 at 8.00 P.M., when the deceased along with

pillion rider-Wadde Nagappa were proceeding to Nandinne

Village on motorcycle, at that time, one Auto rickshaw bearing

MGP,J

No.AP-11U-8859 came in opposite direction at a high speed in a

rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the

deceased, due to which, the deceased and pillion rider sustained

grievous injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Area

Hospital, Gadwal and from there to Government General

Hospital, Kurnool and while undergoing treatment on

03.12.2003 at 1.30 a.m., the deceased died.

4. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the

deceased was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per

month by doing Agriculture and Business. Due to sudden and

untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread

winner and were deprived of their future earnings and estate of

the deceased. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation

of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents 1 to 3.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 & 3 did not file

any counter. On behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance

Company filed its counter contending that the driver of the

crime vehicle do not possess valid and effective driving license at

the time of accident and that the accident had occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of motorcycle on

which the deceased was travelling and further contended that

MGP,J

the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and hence

prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the

learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting

trial:

i. Whether the accident in issue resulted due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle? If so, whether the deceased died due to the said accident? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation and from whom and what amount?

iii. To what relief?

7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 to

3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of

respondents no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the

claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- along

with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of deposit. Having not satisfied with the said compensation

amount, the claimants preferred the present Appeal seeking

enhancement of same.

MGP,J

9. Heard arguments submitted by Sri N.Laxminarayana,

learned counsel representing Smt.J.Sandhya Rani, learned

counsel for appellants as well as Sri CH.Venkata Narayana,

learned counsel representing Sri P.Bhanu Prakash, learned

counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the

record.

10. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellants are

that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly

income of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- and ought to have granted

more amounts under conventional heads. It also contended

that the Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the income

of the deceased and hence prayed to allow the Appeal by

enhancing the compensation amount.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal,

after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable

compensation for which interference of this Court is

unwarranted.

12. Now the point that arises for determination is,

Whether the findings of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?

MGP,J

POINT:-

13. 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 decide the liability of the respondents.

This Appeal has been filed by the claimants only with regard to

quantum of compensation.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that though

the deceased used to do the business of selling agricultural

motor pump sets and earn Rs.5,000/- per month, but the

learned Tribunal fixed his notional income @ Rs.15,000/- per

month and had not considered awarding future prospects to the

established income of the deceased.

15. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that except relying

upon the documents marked under Exs.A1 to A8, the

petitioners failed to produce any record showing that the

deceased used to earn Rs.5,000/- by doing business of selling

agricultural motor pump sets. Hence, the learned Tribunal

fixed the notional income of the deceased @ Rs.15,000/- per

annum. This Court finds the said amount to be meager and is

inclined to interfere with the same by relying upon the judgment

MGP,J

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1

wherein it is held that even though there is no proof of income

and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and

taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased, date of

accident and age of the deceased, and hereby fix the income of

the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month.

16. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the

learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the

established income of the deceased. Hence, this Court, by

considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National

Insurance Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranay Sethi 2 , hereby add 40% towards

future prospects to the income of the deceased since the

deceased being 30 years old at the time of accident and is self-

employed. Thus, the net monthly income of the deceased comes

to Rs.6,300/-. As the number of dependants are three, if 1/3rd

is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, then his

net monthly income comes to Rs.4,200/- and the annual

income comes to Rs.50,400/-. After applying multiplier '17', the

total loss of dependency would come to Rs.8,56,800/-.

(2001) 8 SCC 197

(2017 (6) 170 SC)

MGP,J

17. Further, a perusal of the amounts awarded under

conventional heads in the impugned judgment would show that

the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards

funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of

consortium which this Court finds the same to be meager and is

inclined to interfere with the same 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) and hereby award Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses

and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further,

considering the fact that the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 being minor

children of the deceased, this Court is inclined to award a sum

of Rs.40,000/- under the head of parental consortium as per

the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3.

Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for a total compensation

as indicated under:-

            S.No.       Name of the Head          Amount
                                                  awarded     by
                                                  this Court.

            1           Monthly income            Rs.4,500/-





    (2018) 18 SCC 130


                                                                 MGP,J





        2        Addition    of     40% Rs.6,300/-
                 towards          future
                 prospects

        3        Deduction    of 1/3rd Rs.4,200/-
                 towards       personal
                 expenses.

        4        Applying     Multiplier Rs.8,56,800/-
                 '17'

        5        Loss of consortium     Rs.40,000/-

                 Funeral expenses       Rs.15,000/-

        6        Parental consortium Rs.80,000/-
                 to minor children (2 in
                 number)

        8        TOTAL                  Rs.9,91,800/-
                 COMPENSATION

18. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.1,82,000/- to Rs.9,91,800/- which shall carry interest @

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization. Since the claim against respondent Nos.1 & 3 is

dismissed for default vide Court order dated 10.03.2015,

therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced

compensation amount within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. Upon such deposit, the

appellants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the

MGP,J

apportionment made by the learned Tribunal by paying deficit