Telangana High Court
Smt.C.Usha Kumari And 3 Others vs Kukkala Laxman And 2 Others on 17 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3017 OF 2017
AND
M.A.C.M.A.No.1994 OF 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.3017 of 2017, filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded and
M.A.C.M.A.No.1994 of 2018 filed by the claim petitioners seeking
enhancement of compensation, both are directed against the very
same order and decree dated 19.07.2017 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.455 of 2014, on the file of the Court of Principal
District Judge -cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Mahabubnagar.
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 brief are that the petitioners, who are
the parents and sisters of Chinthapally Vamshi Vardhan Reddy
(hereinafter be referred to as "the deceased"), filed a petition
claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the
deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.03.2014.
As stated by the petitioners, on 07.03.2014, when the deceased
and his friend were proceeding to Hitam College, Medchal on
MGP,J
MACMA.No.3017 of 2017 and
Yamaha FZ motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-CA-3377 in order to drop
his friend at the said college and when they reached Sutariguda
lake, one DCM Van bearing No.AP-23X-7048 came from behind in
a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the
motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased along with
his friend fell down and having sustained Head injury, the
deceased died on the spot.
4. Based on the complaint given by the deceased friend Sri
Naresh Kumar, Police of Medchal Police Station registered a case in
Crime No.90 of 2014 under Section 304-A IPC.
5. It is further stated by the petitioners that as on the date of
accident, the deceased was aged 25 years and had completed B.Sc
Nursing and used to run business of B.P.O. Services, Software
Solutions, Health Care Hospitalities, under the name and style of
M/s.VAMNAS, situated at Kamalanagar, Hyderabad, and used to
earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to sudden death of the
deceased, the petitioners lost their sole bread winner in the family
and it is becoming difficult for them to eke out their livelihood. As
respondents being the owner, insurer and driver of the crime
vehicle DCM Van bearing No.AP-23-X-7048, they all are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation.
MGP,J
MACMA.No.3017 of 2017 and
6. Respondent No.1/Owner of DCM Van filed his counter
admitting the involvement of crime vehicle in the accident and
stated that he himself surrendered his vehicle to the police station
and contended that as the vehicle was insured with respondent
No.2, therefore, respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay
compensation and that the compensation claimed is excess and
exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the occurrence of accident, involvement of vehicle, age and
earnings of the deceased and contended that the driver of the
crime vehicle do not posses valid driving license and the petitioners
and respondent No.1 got colluded and filed a false case for claiming
compensation and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
8. Respondent No.3/Driver of the crime vehicle did not choose
to file any counter before the Tribunal.
9. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of DCM Van bearing
No.AP-23-X-7048?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim
compensation? If so, to what amount?
MGP,J
MACMA.No.3017 of 2017 and
(iii) Whether respondents 1 t 3 are liable to pay
compensation?
(iv) To what relief?
10. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 & 2
were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of
respondents, RW1 was examined and no documents were filed on
their behalf.
11. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents
available on record, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding
compensation of Rs.14,21,000/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. The claim against
respondent No.3 was dismissed by the Tribunal. Challenging the
same, the present appeals came to be filed by the claimants and
Insurance Company respectively.
12. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Grandhi, learned Standing Counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.3017 of 2017 and
Sri K.Venkat Ram Reddy, learned counsel for appellants/claimants
in M.A.C.M.A.No.1994 of 2018. Perused the record.
13. The contentions of the learned counsel for
appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.3017 of 2017 are
that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the
MGP,J
MACMA.No.3017 of 2017 and
deceased @ Rs.8,000/- per month in the absence of documentary
proof, erred in awarding 50% towards future prospects and also
erred in awarding excess amounts under conventional heads and
also awarded excess interest @ 9% on the compensation amount
and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order
of the learned Tribunal.
14. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Counsel for
Respondents/claimants/appellants in M.A.C.M.A.No.1994 of 2018
are that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the documentary
evidence filed under Exs.A1 to A14 and had not assessed the
income of the deceased properly and awarded meager
compensation as against the claim amount and therefore prayed to
allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.
15. Now the point that emerge for determination is,
(i) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal
requires interference of this Court?
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
POINTS:-
16. Since there is no dispute about the occurrence of accident
and death of the deceased, there is no necessity for this Court to
once again delve into the said aspects. The only point that has to
be determined in the present two Appeals is with regard to
quantum of compensation.
MGP,J
MACMA.No.3017 of 2017 and
17. A perusal of quantum of compensation in the impugned
judgment reveals that the Tribunal, considering the educational
qualification of the deceased under Ex.A10 and the partnership
deed under Ex.A8 executed between the deceased and his friend
for carrying out partnership business, fixed his monthly income @
Rs.8,000/- per month. Since the average pay packet for an entry
level Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) agent is Rs.7,000/- to
Rs 8,000/-, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
learned Tribunal had rightly assessed the income of the deceased
@ Rs.8,000/- per month which do not require any further
interference.
18. Learned counsel representing Insurance Company also
contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding 50%
towards future prospects though the occupation of the deceased
was not permanent in nature. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case between National Insurance
Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranay Sethi 1, the persons falling below the age of 40
years and are self-employed, were entitled for 40% addition
towards future prospects to the established income of the
deceased. As the petitioners failed to prove about specific nature of
employment of the deceased, this Court, considering the
occupation of the deceased as self-employed and by relying upon
2017(6) 170 SC
MGP,J
MACMA.No.3017 of 2017 and
Pranay Sethi judgment (cited supra) is inclined to interfere with the
finding of the Tribunal and hereby reduce the future prospects
awarded by the Tribunal from 50% to 40% and calculate the
compensation. After addition of 40% to the established income of
the deceased, then the net monthly income comes to Rs.11,200/-.
Since the deceased is a Bachelor, if 50% is deducted towards his
personal expenses, then his net monthly income comes to
Rs.5,600/- and the annual income comes to Rs.67,200/-. After
applying multiplier '18' for the deceased being 25 years old at the
time of accident, then the total loss of earnings on account of the
death of the deceased would come to Rs.12,09,600/-.
19. Further, a perusal of the amounts awarded under
conventional heads in the impugned judgment would show that the
learned Tribunal granted amounts of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of
love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses which
this Court finds it to be excess 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.33,000/- towards
conventional heads for the deceased being Bachelor. Thus, the
claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.12,42,600/-
which calculation is shown below:-
MGP,J
MACMA.No.3017 of 2017 and
S.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
1 Monthly income Rs.8,000/- -
2 Amount arrived Rs.12,000/- Rs.11,200/-
after addition of
future prospects (50% added) (reduced to 40%)
3 Deduction of 50% Rs.6000 Rs.5,600/-
since the
deceased being
bachelor
4 Loss of earnings Rs.12,96,000/- Rs.12,09,600/-
calculated after
application of
Multiplier '18'
5 Conventional Rs.1,25,000/- Rs.33,000/-
heads
6 TOTAL Rs.14,21,000/- Rs.12,42,600/-
COMPENSATION
20. So far as interest on the compensation amount is concerned,
this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2, reduces the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per
annum.
2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
MACMA.No.3017 of 2017 and
21. Since there is no dispute regarding liability, the finding given
by the Tribunal holds good and which do not require any
interference by this Court.
22. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.3017 of 2017 is partly-allowed
by reducing the compensation along with rate of interest awarded
by the Tribunal from Rs.14,21,000/- to Rs.12,42,600/- and
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization and M.A.C.M.A.No.1994 of 2018 shall stand dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
23. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.17.02.2025
ysk
