Telangana High Court

B Lavanya, Hyderabad And Anr vs Krishnanedu Anil Sarkar, Chandrapur Ms ... on 31 January, 2025

      HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.3286 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 09.01.2014

(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the

learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

(hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.824 of

2012, the petitioners/claimants have filed the present Appeal

seeking enhancement of compensation.

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

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, who are the wife and son of

"Mr.Tirumalesh" (hereinafter will be referred as 'deceased') have

filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-

from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the death of the deceased

in the road traffic accident on 12.01.2012. The brief facts of the

claim petition filed by the petitioners, are as under:

a) On 12.01.2012 at about 2.00 PM the deceased was

proceeding on Scooty bearing registration No. AP 09 U 0949

from Yousufguda towards Medchal and when he reached near

MGP,J

Kandlakoya X Roads, the driver of Maruti Swift Car bearing

registration No. MH 34 K 9074 (hereinafter will be referred as

'crime vehicle') drove the same in rash and negligent manner

and dashed the scooty of the deceased from its behind. Due to

which the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries.

Immediately he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, wherein he

succumbed to injuries on 13.01.2012 while undergoing

treatment.

c) A case in Crime No.12 of 2012 of Medchal Police Station

was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle for the

offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

d) Prior to the accident, the deceased, who was aged about

34 years, was hale, healthy and earning Rs.15,000/- per month

as an Electrician. by doing Police, Medchal The deceased was

unmarried, hale, healthy and aged about 27 years at the time of

the accident and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The

deceased was the sole bread winner of the entire family

consisting of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (wife and son) and

respondent No.3, who is the mother of the deceased. The

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part

of driver of crime vehicle, which belongs to respondent No.1 and

MGP,J

insured with respondent No.2. The respondents being owner

and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation

of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. In reply to the above claim application, the respondent

No.2 filed counter and whereas the respondent No.1 remained

exparte. The Respondent No.2 denied the petition averments

including the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning

capacity, involvement and negligent of driver of crime vehicle. It

was further contended that the claim of the petitioner is

excessive and exorbitant. 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 took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. MH 34 K 9074 causing death of B.Tirumalesh?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of petitioner, PWs 1

and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf

of respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were

marked. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and

MGP,J

documentary evidence on behalf of both sides, awarded

compensation of Rs.6,01,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the

appellants/petitioners preferred the present Appeal to enhance

the compensation.

7. Heard Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel

for the appellants/petitioners, Sri Harinath Reddy Soma,

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance

Company and perused the record including the grounds of

Appeal.

8. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.1 and 2

have not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order.

There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the

petitioners, respondent No.3 and deceased. There is also no

dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the

learned Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of PW2

(eyewitness to the accident) coupled with the documentary

evidence under Exs.A1 (FIR), A2 (charge sheet), A3 (spot

panchanama), A4 (MVI Report), A5 (inquest report) and A6 (PME

Report) has arrived to a conclusion that the accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. Further,

MGP,J

there is also no dispute with regard to the subsistence of the

policy at the time of accident as evident from Ex.B2.

9. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioners is that though the deceased was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month as electrician, the learned Tribunal has

considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month.

In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied

upon a decision of the High Court of Madras in Sagunthala

Perumal v. Bakkiyam, Manager, United India Insurance

Company Limited 1, wherein the salary of the deceased was

fixed at Rs.9,000/- by considering the deceased as "coolie".

The learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon a

decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Jeyarani and

another v. Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Company Limited and another 2, wherein the monthly income

of the deceased was fixed at Rs.9,000/- per month i.e., Rs.300/-

per day.

10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have not placed

on record any evidence to establish that the deceased was

earning Rs.15,000/- per month as electrician. As can be seen

1 2020 Law Suit (Mad) 2388 2 2023 Law Suit (SC) 974

MGP,J

Exs.A1 and A2, the occupation of the deceased was mentioned

by his family members as private job. But it is not specifically

mentioned that the deceased was eking out his livelihood by

doing the job of electrician. In the absence of any evidence, the

learned Tribunal by relying on the decision of the Honourable

Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 3 fixed the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. The decision of

the Honourable Supreme Court relied upon by the claimants in

Jeyarani's case (supra) pertains to the accident that occurred

in the year 2013 and whereas the accident in the present

Appeal pertains to the year 2012. Thus, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal so

far as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned.

11. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the learned Tribunal wrongly taken the age of

the deceased on higher side and wrong multiplier on the lower

side. As seen from the record, the petitioners have mentioned

the age of the deceased as 34 years in the claim petition.

However, a perusal of Exs.A1 and A2, the age of the deceased

was mentioned as 42 years. Ex.A1 was lodged by the brother in

3 2011 (2) An.W.R. 988 (SC)

MGP,J

law of the deceased by name S.M.Narayana, who stated in the

complaint that the age of the deceased was 42 years. However,

a perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned

Tribunal by relying on Ex.A6 (PME) report arrived to the

conclusion that the age of the deceased as 39 years and thereby

fixed the multiplier as '16'. But as per the principle laid down

in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4, the appropriate

multiplier for the persons between the age group of 36 to 40

years is '15' but not '16'. Thus, the learned Tribunal erred in

fixing a wrong multiplier while calculating the quantum of

compensation. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken

the age of the deceased at higher side is unsustainable.

12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the learned Tribunal has not considered the

aspect of future prospects while calculating the compensation.

Since the deceased was aged below 40 years and self employed,

he is entitled for future prospects @ 40% as per the decision laid

down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay

(2009) 6 SCC 121

MGP,J

Sethi and others 5. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased

with future prospects comes to Rs.6,300/- per annum

(Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). Since, the dependents are three in

number, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased has to be deducted

from income of the deceased towards his personal expenses and

thereby the annual income of the deceased after deducting

personal expenses comes to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.6,300/- -

Rs.2,100/-) and the annual income of the deceased comes to

Rs.50,400/- (4,200/- x 12 months). As stated supra, the

relevant multiplier for the age of the deceased is '15'. When the

annual salary of the deceased after deducting his personal

expenses is multiplied with the relevant multiplier, it comes to

Rs.7,56,000/- (Rs.50,400/- x 15). Thus, the loss of dependency

on account of sudden demise of deceased is Rs.7,56,000/-.

13. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss

of estate of the deceased, love and affection, care and guidance

of the deceased. Apart from that the learned Tribunal awarded

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1.

However, as per the principle laid down in National Insurance

5 2017 ACJ 2700

MGP,J

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others 6, the

claimant/petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the

conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon)

towards loss of estate (Rs.15,000/-), loss of consortium

(Rs.40,000/-) and funeral expenses (Rs.15,000/-). Further, the

petitioner No.2 being the minor of the deceased is entitled for

parental consortium at Rs.40,000/- as per the decision of the

Honourable Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance

Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram 7. Though

the claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, in

Chandramani Nanda v. Sarat Chandra Swain and another 8,

the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the amount of

compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High

Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found

to be just and reasonable. Thus, the claimants are entitled for

compensation of Rs.8,73,000/- (Rs.7,56,000/- + Rs.77,000/- +

Rs.40,000/-).

14. It is to be seen that out of the compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4,51,000/- to

6 2017 ACJ 2700

7 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904 8 2024 INSC 777

MGP,J

petitioner No.1, Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner No.2 and

Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.3. Further, the learned

Tribunal permitted the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 to

withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively and

directed the amount awarded to the minor petitioner No.2 to be

deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of two years. It

is pertinent to note that by this day the time frame fixed by the

learned Tribunal with regard to the deposit of part of

compensation amount in any nationalized bank, has already

been completed and the purpose for which the learned Tribunal

has passed such direction might have been fulfilled. Further,

the petitioner No.2, who was minor at the time of filing the

petition, might have obtained the age of majority. Thus, this

Court feels it appropriate to apportion the compensation arrived

by this Court in the following proportion:

Sl.No.         Description of the party               Amount

1.       Petitioner No.1 (wife of the deceased)       Rs.6,50,000/-
2.       Petitioner No.2 (son of the deceased)        Rs.1,50,000/-

3. Respondent No.3 (mother of the deceased) Rs. 73,000/-

15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court

is of the considered view that impugned order passed by the

MGP,J

learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of

above observations.

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

compensation amount from Rs.6,01,000/- to Rs.8,73,000/-,

which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

filing the claim application till the date of realization. The

respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the

compensation amount within two months from the date of