Telangana High Court
P.Hanuman Prasad And Another vs P.Nagendra Aswath And Another on 3 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.25 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed aggrieved by the award dated
10.10.2014, passed in O.P.No.878 of 2010 by the I Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge - cum - XV Additional Chief Judge,
Hyderabad, (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Heard Sri V.Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent-2/Insurance Company. Perused
the record.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that on
24.12.2012, claimant No.2 along with her daughter Pandurangi
Mrudhula @ Pandurangi Mrudula Rani, who was studying
M.B.B.S. II year in Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal and two
others friends of his daughter were coming to Hyderabad in their
car bearing No.AP 29 AF 9285 and when they reached
Raghunathpally Village near Brundhavan Dabha, the driver of the
car drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high
speed. Due to which, the car turned turtle, as a result, the
daughter of the claimants died on the spot.
LNA, J
4. The police, Raghunathapally, registered a case in Crime
No.125 of 2009, for the offences under Sections, 304-A and 337 of
IPC.
5. The claimants have filed O.P.No.878 of 2010 before the
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of
the death of their daughter in the accident. It was contended that
the deceased was studying M.B.B.S. II Year at Kakatiya Medical
College and they have lost their daughter, who was meritorious
student, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the crime vehicle; and that if the deceased had completed her
graduation, atleast she would have earned a sum of Rs.25,000/-
per month by working in hospital or setting up own practice.
6. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.
Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company has filed counter denying
age of the deceased as well as allegation that the deceased was
meritorious student and was studying M.B.B.S. II Year at
Kakatiya Medical College. It was specifically denied that the
deceased would have earned a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. It
is finally contended that the amount claimed by the claimants was
exorbitant.
LNA, J
7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed
the following issues:
"1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 24.12.2009 has
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
crime vehicle i.e., car bearing No.AP 29 AF 9285 and whether the
deceased P.Mrudula died due to the said accident?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if
so, to what quantum and whether crime vehicle was owned by first
respondent and insured with second respondent and what is the
liability of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
8. Before the Tribunal, to substantiate the claim, the claimants
examined themselves as PW1 and PW2 and Exs.A1 to A8 were
marked. On behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, none
was examined, however, Ex.B1/copy of Insurance Policy was
marked.
9. The Tribunal, on due appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence placed on record, vide order dated 10.10.2014, has partly
allowed the appeal and awarded a sum of Rs.14,18,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Not satisfied with the
compensation amount, the claimants have filed the present appeal
for enhancement of compensation.
LNA, J
10. Learned counsel for the claimants had contended that the
Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.12,000/- per month, which is very meager and the Tribunal
should have atleast considered a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month
as the income of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal did not
award any compensation towards consortium. Further, as per the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 1, the Tribunal should have
awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- to each claimant towards
consortium. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to allow
the appeal and enhance the compensation.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company had contended that on due
consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record,
the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and proper compensation by
taking into consideration the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.12,000/- and that there are no grounds to interfere with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Further, it is contended
that the Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier '19' instead
of '18'. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
LNA, J
12. Perusal of the record would disclose that the deceased
Mrudhula Rani was a medical student, studying M.B.B.S. II year
at Kakatiya Medical College and died in the accident that took
place on 24.12.2009. The Tribunal has considered the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month and since the
deceased was bachelor, 50% of her income was deducted towards
personal expenses.
13. Learned counsel for the claimants had placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.26871 of
2019, dated 05.07.2023 in Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs.
Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through Lrs and others,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the monthly
earning of medical student at Rs.25,000/- by following the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashvinbhai
Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and
another. Further, he relied upon the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court in CMA.No.1800 of 2019 and
batch, wherein, the Madras High Court has considered the
monthly earnings from Engineering student at Rs.18,000/-.
14. Considering the above judgments, this Court is of the
considered view that monthly earning of the deceased can be
LNA, J
taken at Rs.25,000/- as the deceased was pursuing M.B.B.S II
year at Kakatiya Medical College as on the date of her death.
15. The deceased was MBBS II Year student as on the date of
accident and she has to pursue three more years for completing
the graduation. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment
referred, 10% of monthly income has to be deducted for each
uncompleted year. Accordingly, if 30% of monthly income of the
deceased is deducted, then the income comes to Rs.17,500/- per
month. Having regard to the age of deceased as 20 years as on the
date of accident, 40% of her income has to be included as future
prospects as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi's case supra and the monthly income would come
to Rs.24,500/- {17,500 + (40% of 17,500)}.
16. Further, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi's case supra, in the case of bachelor, 50% of her
income has to be deducted towards personal expenses, then the
income of the deceased would come to Rs.12,250/- per month and
the annual income comes to Rs.1,47,000/-. As the deceased was
aged 20 years as on the date of accident, as per the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi
LNA, J
Transport Corporation and another 2 the relevant multiplier is
'18', however, the Tribunal has erroneously considered the
multiplier as '19'. As per Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, if
the said annual contribution arrived is multiplied with relevant
multiplier to the age of the deceased i.e. '18', the total amount
comes to Rs.26,46,400/- (1,47,000 x 18). The claimants are
entitled for the said amount under the head of loss of dependency.
17. Further, as per ratio laid down in case of Pranay Sethi's
case supra, each claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards
consortium and further, the claimants are entitled for a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards
loss of estate.
18. Therefore, the claimants are eligible for the compensation as
below:
Sl.No. Name of the Head Compensation Compensation
awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal Court
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,68,000/- Rs.26,46,400/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
3. Loss of consortium - Rs.80,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- to each
claimant)
4. Funeral expenses RS.25,000/- Rs.15,000/-
5. Total Rs.14,18,000/- Rs.27,56,400/-
(2009) 6 SCC 121
LNA, J
19. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.14,18,000/- to Rs.27,56,400/-.
(a) The awarded amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The respondents shall deposit the amount within a period of
eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire
amount as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous
petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 03.01.2025
Dua
LNA, J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
03.01.2025
Dua
