Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt.Bebitai Ashokrao Jannawar on 6 January, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A No.1700 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
This appeal has been preferred challenging the decree and order
dated 01.08.2024 in M.V.O.P.No.585 of 2019 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter 'the Tribunal').
2. Heard Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant/respondent No.2/Insurer and Mr. Pallati Chandramouli, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/petitioners.
3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that, on 07.08.2018, at about
4.20 AM, while Ashokrao Madhavrao Jannawar/deceased was proceeding
in a Toofan Car bearing Registration No.MH 26 AK 6317 towards
Tirupathi, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
and collided with one Lorry that was proceeding in the same direction,
resulting in his death. The wife and son of the deceased filed petition
seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal, after considering
the merits of the case, awarded Rs.20,60,000/- with 6% interest per
annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer would fairly submit that
there is no dispute in regard to liability but in assessment of
compensation, the age and income of the deceased were accounted by
2 NTR,J
the Tribunal without basis and against the record. These aspects,
therefore, require reconsideration.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/claim petitioners fairly
admitted that the record filed by the claim petitioners reflects the age of
the deceased as 62 years. However, pleaded that though the petitioners
failed to place any evidence proving the monthly income of the deceased,
the deceased was earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month by running
a Bakery Business. Nonetheless by unreasonable guess work, the
Tribunal restricted the monthly income at Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, prayed
for revising the income of the deceased and for granting just
compensation.
6. I have perused the material on record.
7. The point arises for determination is whether the age and income
used for calculating the compensation are reasonable.
8. The First Information Report (FIR), Charge Sheet, Inquest and
Postmortem Report are reflecting that the deceased was aged about 62
years. However, the Tribunal has considered the age to be 55 years.
Having regard to this position and in the light of fair admission by the
respondents' counsel, the relevant age of the deceased is mended as 62
years.
3 NTR,J
9. In regard to the earnings, the petitioners submitted a registration
certificate for running food products business under the name and style
of M/s. Jannawar Food Products and the manner of business has been
reflected as Retail. However, for the reasons best known, no document
has been placed by the petitioners to prove the income. In that position,
the income has to be derived on guess work. Having regard to the
relevant occupation as a retailer of food products, and by the age, it can
be reasonably presumed that the deceased would have contributed in
managerial aspects of the business. For loss of such services, the
monthly income needs valuation. Having this reason, taking the daily
income of the deceased at Rs.600/- and monthly income at 18,000/- is
found just and proper.
10. As the dependents are two in number, if 1/3rd is deducted towards
the personal living expenses, the deceased's annual contribution to the
family would be Rs.1,44,000/-. As the deceased was more than 60
years, future prospectus would not be applicable (See National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others 1). Thus, the
contribution of the deceased to the family i.e., multiplicand if multiplied
with the relevant multiplier applicable to his age as per the judgment of
Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another 2 i.e. '7', the total would come to Rs.10,08,000/-.
(2017) 16 SCC 860
2009 ACJ 1298
4 NTR,J
11. In addition, as per the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra) and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others 3, the
respondents/petitioners are entitled for spousal and parental consortium
at Rs.48,400/- each and Rs.18,150/- each towards loss of estate and
funeral expenses respectively.
12. However, considering the pleading that, after the accident and
death, the deceased was shifted to his native place i.e., Ambikanagar,
Yavatmal District, State of Maharashtra and although no specific
document has been filed, considering the probable expense granting
Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of the dead body is found
appropriate.
13. Accordingly, the respondents/petitioners are entitled for
compensation as under:
Description Amount awarded
(in rupees)
Loss of dependency 10,08,000.00
Spousal and parental consortium to 96,800.00
the respective petitioners @
Rs.48,400/- each
Loss of estate and funeral expenses 36,300.00
Transportation expenses 20,000.00
TOTAL 11,61,100.00
2021(11) SCC 780
5 NTR,J
14. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed. The respondents/petitioners are
entitled for Rs.11,61,100/- with 7.5% interest per annum. The ratio of
apportionment among the respondents/petitioners shall remain as per
the impugned order. The appellant/respondent No.2 is directed to
deposit the differential amount within a period of four (4) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the above terms, the impugned
decree stands modified. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 06.01.2025
HFM
