Telangana High Court
Pandilla Susheela vs Nikoda Ganapathi on 24 January, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.185 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 17.04.2017
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned award') passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District
Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal") in
M.V.O.P.No.374 of 2005, the petitioners/claimants have filed
the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are that the petitioners have filed claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 to 8
for the death of deceased by name "Pandilla Rajaiah"
(hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased'). Petitioner No.1 is the
wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children of deceased and
petitioner No.1. The brief facts of the claim petition filed by the
petitioners, is as under:
a) On 15.11.2004 the deceased went to Akkepalli Village to
attend a function on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 25 d 5045.
MGP,J
After attending the function, the deceased along with his sister
were returning to their village and on the way when they
reached the outskirts of Rajapur Village at about 7.00 PM, due
to darkness, the deceased dashed his motorcycle to the lorry
bearing No.ATR 6027 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime
vehicle'), which was placed in the middle of the road, without
any precautionary measures. Due to the accident, the deceased
died on the spot and his sister, who was the pillion rider,
sustained bleeding injuries and fractures.
b) A case in Crime No.96 of 2004 was registered for the
offence under Section 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code
by Police, Muthram against the driver of the lorry and after
thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence
under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
c) The deceased was hale, healthy and aged about 56 ½
years at the time of the accident and was working as Short Fire
Helper in 10 Incline of SCC Limited, Godhavarikhani and
earning Rs.11,000/- per month. The deceased also entitled for
bonus, exgratia, leave travel concession, under ground
allowance etc. The deceased was the sole bread winner of his
family. Therefore, the petitioners as dependents of the deceased
filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-
MGP,J
against respondents jointly and severally. Respondent Nos.1 to
4 are the driver, owner and insurers of crime vehicle
respectively. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 are the daughters of the
deceased and they got married and living separately with their
respective husbands.
4. The respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8 remained exparte.
Respondent No.3 filed its counter denying the allegations made
in the petition and that the deceased alone was responsible for
the accident. It was further contended that the claim of the
petitioner is excessive and exorbitant in all proportions. On the
above grounds prayed to dismiss the claim application.
5. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed
the following issues.
i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the crime vehicle driven by its
driver/R1?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation on account of the death of the deceased,
who is the husband of the petitioner and father of
petitioner Nos.2 and 3, if so, to what amount and from
whom the compensation has to be claimed?
iii) To what relief?
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioners, PWs 1
to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf
of respondent No.3, no oral evidence was adduced; however,
MGP,J
Ex.B1 Copy of Insurance policy was marked. The learned
Tribunal after considering the rival contentions partly allowed
the claim petition by awarding compensation amount of
Rs.5,44,661/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellants/petitioners
preferred the present Appeal to enhance the compensation.
7. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have
not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned Award. The
learned Tribunal fixed the liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3,
who are driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle
respectively. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship
between the petitioners, respondent Nos.5 to 8 and deceased.
8. There is also no dispute with regard to the manner of the
accident, as the learned Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence
of PW1 (son of the deceased/petitioner No.3) and PW2 (sister of
the deceased/pillion rider) coupled with the documentary
evidence under Exs.A1 (FIR), A2 (inquest report), A3 (charge
sheet), A4 (PME Report), A5 (MVI Report), A6 (Form No.54) and
A6 (crime details form), has arrived to a conclusion that the
accident occurred due to the parking of the crime vehicle in the
middle of the road without any precautionary measures.
MGP,J
9. The main contention of the learned counsel for
appellants/ petitioners is that the learned Tribunal failed to
consider the monthly income of the deceased as per Ex.A12 and
failed to consider the evidence of PW3 (employer of deceased)
but without any basis has considered only the basic pay of the
deceased @ Rs.5,181/- by leaving aside the other allowances
drawn by the deceased.
10. A perusal of the impugned Award discloses that the
learned Tribunal fixed the basic pay of the deceased shown in
Ex.A10 as the monthly salary of the deceased. But it is
pertinent to note that while fixing the monthly salary, gross
salary has to be taken into consideration after deducting the
statutory deductions. The learned Tribunal ought not to have
taken only basic pay of the deceased while arriving to the
monthly income of the deceased. As per Exs.A8, A10 and A12
apart from the basic pay, the deceased was also drawing various
allowances, which form part of salary. It is to be seen that none
of the documents discloses the statutory deductions to be
deducted from the salary of the deceased. The notional
monthly salary of the deceased as per Ex.P10 is Rs.10,777-72
paise per month as on the date of the accident. The deceased
expired on 15.11.2004. Thus, the salary of the deceased prior
MGP,J
to his death is to be ascertained. As per Ex.A8, the gross salary
of the deceased for the month of October, 2004 was shown as
Rs.10,904-29 paise. Even in the said document, there is no
mention with regard to the statutory deductions like
professional tax, income tax etc., from the salary of the
deceased. In these circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that the after deducting necessary statutory
deductions, the salary of the deceased can be arrived at
Rs.10,000/-.
11. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased
as 56 years as on the date of the accident since the learned
Tribunal by relying on PME Report and inquest report under
Exs.A2 and A4 has rightly came to the said conclusion that the
deceased was aged about 56 years as on the date of accident.
Thus, as per the principle laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation 1, the appropriate multiplier for the
persons aged between 56 to 60 years is '9'.
12. Since the claimants are three in number, 1/3rd of the
monthly salary of the deceased (Rs.3,333/-) shall be deducted
towards personal expenses of the deceased, as such, the
(2009) 6 SCC 121
MGP,J
contribution of the deceased towards his family members will
arrive to Rs.6,667/-.
13. It is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal has not
considered the aspect of future prospects while calculating the
compensation. Since the deceased was aged above 60 years
and doing permanent job, he is entitled for future prospects @
15% as per the decision laid down in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 2. Thus, the
monthly income of the deceased with future prospects comes to
Rs.7,667/- per annum (Rs.6,667/- + Rs.1,000/-) and the
annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.92,004/- (7,667/- x
12 months). As stated supra, the relevant multiplier for the age
of the deceased is '9'. When the annual salary of the deceased
after deducting his personal expenses is multiplied with the
relevant multiplier, it comes to Rs.8,28,036/- (Rs.92,004/- x 9).
Thus, the loss of dependency on account of sudden demise of
deceased is Rs.8,28,036/-.
The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards
loss of consortium and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
However, as per the principle laid down in National Insurance
2 2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 3 the claimants
are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads
(Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Though the
claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, it is
settled law that there is no restriction upon the Court to award
compensation exceeding the amount claimed. It is the duty of
the Court to award just compensation. Thus, in all,
petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.9,05,036/- (Rs. 8,28,036/- + Rs. 77,000/-).
14. Now coming to the entitlement of the compensation,
though the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and respondent Nos.5 to 8
are majors and not depending upon the earnings of the
deceased, they are certainly entitled for some amount out of the
compensation amount towards loss of love and affection.
15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered view that impugned order passed by the
learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of
above observations.
3 2017 ACJ 2700
MGP,J
16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.5,44,661/- to Rs.9,05,036/-, which shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the
claim application till the date of realization. The respondent
Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to deposit the
compensation amount within one month from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment. Out of the above said
compensation, the petitioner No.1 is awarded an amount of
Rs.7,85,036/- and the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and respondent Nos.5
to 8, who are the children of deceased, are awarded an amount
of Rs.20,000/- each. The petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 8
are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them
without furnishing any security subject to deposit of deficit
court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 24.01.2025
AS
