Telangana High Court
Smt. Bandari Lavanya And 3 Others vs Md. Samiuddin And Anothers on 21 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1917 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and Sri Narsi Reddy Teegala, learned
standing counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
Perused the entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants
aggrieved by the award dated 07.12.2015 passed by the learned
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-XXI Addl. Chief
Judge-cum-VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for
short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2140 of 2010 filed by them.
3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 31.01.2010, the
deceased B. Venkatesh along with his wife and minor son was
proceeding on a motorcycle to go to his native Thimmaipally village,
on the way at 4.30 pm, when he reached near Celebrity Club,
Shamirpet, one DCM van bearing No.AP 09 0108 came in opposite
direction and hit the motorcycle causing accident, whereby, the
deceased sustained fractures to vital parts of the body and
succumbed while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad on 01.02.2010. Due to the death of the deceased,
the claimants sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and were
awarded compensation of Rs.7,19,000/- with future interest at
7.5% per annum.
4. The claim petition was taken up under Section 163-A of the
M.V.Act. The appellants claimed compensation to be on lower side
as the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-
per month though the deceased was working as centering labour.
It is further claimed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance 1 has
considered the monthly income of the daily wage labourer at
Rs.4,500/- without there being any evidence. In such
circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have considered the income
of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-. Further, there are four dependants
on the deceased and therefore 1/4th of the income has to be
deducted towards personal expenses, whereas the learned Tribunal
has deducted 1/3rd of the income. The deceased was aged 40 years
as on the date of accident. Therefore, 50 percent of the income has
to be added towards future prospects as per law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and
others 2. On the basis of aforesaid mentioned grounds, the
(2011) 13 SCC 236
2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
appellants/ claimants are claiming compensation of
Rs.15,32,450/-.
5. Upon considering the claim, it is seen that the appellants plea
for calculating the compensation taking the income as laid down in
Ramachandrappa's case (1 supra) is just and reasonable. Further,
when there are four dependants on the deceased, deduction of
1/3rd of the income towards personal expenses by the Tribunal is
clearly an error that needs to be rectified. Hence, 1/4th of the
income has to be deducted towards personal expenditure. Coming
to the future prospects, in Rajesh's case (2 supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had added 50% future prospects, where the
deceased was working as a Clerk in a School under the Education
Department. In the present case, since the deceased was a labour,
as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others 3, only 40% future prospects has to be added as he was self
employed.
6. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi's case (3 supra), if future prospects at 40% i.e.,
Rs.1,800/- towards future prospects is added to the monthly
income, the net monthly income comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- +
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Rs.1,800/-). Considering the net annual income at Rs.75,600/-
(Rs.6,300x12), if 1/4th of the said income is deducted towards
personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the
appellants would be Rs.56,700/-. If the said amount is multiplied
by the appropriate multiplier '17' as was rightly taken by the
Tribunal relying on Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 4, the total compensation under the head of 'loss of
dependency' would be Rs.9,63,900/-. Further, the Tribunal had
awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium,
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and protection and Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses and this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said finding. In addition thereof, appellant No.2 who is
minor son of the deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/- under the
head of 'parental consortium' as per the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited
v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 5.
7. Thus, in all, the total compensation payable would be
Rs.11,78,900/- instead of Rs.7,19,000/- as awarded by the
Tribunal.
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
8. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation
amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from
Rs.7,19,000/- to Rs.11,78,900/-, which shall carry interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The
compensation amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in
the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were
directed by the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said
amount by within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment and recover it from respondent No.1. On such
deposit, appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their
respective share amounts without furnishing any security. As far as
appellant No.2 is concerned, he is entitled to withdraw his share
after attaining majority. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 21.02.2025
gvl
