Telangana High Court
Aneessa Begum And 2 Ors vs R.Venkat Reddy And Anr on 9 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.665 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
The appellants have filed this appeal against the Order
and Decree dated 30.04.2010 in O.P.No.875 of 2004 passed
by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(I Additional District Judge), Nizamabad (for short 'the
tribunal') whereunder the tribunal has granted an amount of
Rs.3,33,000/- towards compensation along with interest @
7.5% per annum as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- on
account of the death of the deceased in the accident occurred
on 24.05.2004.
2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri N.S.Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and perused the record.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. On 24.05.2004, the deceased was driving the auto
bearing No.AP-25-U-3846 from Bodhan towards Varni side
and when he reached near Saithi Public School, one lorry
bearing No.AP-29-T-0791, came from opposite direction in a
JSR, J
2 MACMA_665_2014
rash and negligent manner at high speed on wrong side of the
road and dashed the auto. As a result, the deceased
sustained head injury and other crush injuries and
succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at
Government Hospital, Nizamabad.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellants:
4.1. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended
that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
lorry, the deceased died and to prove the said factum, the
appellants filed Exs.A1 and A2 i.e., certified copies of FIR and
charge sheet and the tribunal without considering the same,
fixed the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased
as well as respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the lorry. He further
submits that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged
about 25 years and used to earn an amount of Rs.10,000/-
per month, by working as driver. He further submits that the
tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-,
on the ground that the appellants have not produced any
evidence to establish the income of the deceased. He further
submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
JSR, J
3 MACMA_665_2014
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/-.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
5.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 contended that the accident has occurred due to head
on collusion and the tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record has rightly awarded an
amount of Rs.3,33,000/- and the appellants are not entitled
for enhancement of compensation.
6. Analysis of the case:
6.1. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute
that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
lorry, the deceased died. It is the case of the appellant that at
the time of accident, deceased used to earn an amount of
(2011) 13 SCC 236
JSR, J
4 MACMA_665_2014
Rs.10,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has taken his
earnings @ Rs.3,000/- per month, on the ground that the
appellants have not produced any evidence about the income
of the deceased.
6.2. As per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Ramachandrappa's case, this Court is inclined to
consider the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month.
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that while considering the
compensation in cases of death, the future prospects of the
self employed shall also be considered. Having regard to the
age and occupation of the deceased as self-employed, 40
percent of the income is included as future prospects and the
monthly income would come to Rs.6,300/-(4,500+1,800). As
the dependents are three members, 1/3rd of the income has to
be deducted towards personal expenditure, as per law laid
down in Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation3. Thus, monthly income of the deceased comes
to Rs.4,200/- (6,300-2,100) and the annual contribution of
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
JSR, J
5 MACMA_665_2014
the deceased to the appellants comes to Rs.50,400/-
(4,200x12). As on the date of accident, the age of the deceased
is 24 years. The appropriate multiplier is '18' and the total
amount comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (50,400x18). The appellants
are entitled for the said amount under the head of loss of
dependency. The appellants are entitled for an amount of
Rs.70,000/- towards conventional heads, loss of estate and
funeral expenses. Accordingly, the appellants are granted
total compensation amount of Rs.9,77,200/-
(9,07,200+70,000). Out of the said amount, 25% of amount is
deducted towards contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased. Hence, the appellants are granted total
compensation of Rs.7,32,900/- (9,77,200-25%).
7. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed, enhancing
the compensation amount granted by the tribunal to the
appellants from Rs.3,33,000/- to Rs.7,32,900/-(Rupees seven
lakhs thirty two thousand nine hundred only). The enhanced
compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till realization. The enhanced
amount shall be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly
JSR, J
6 MACMA_665_2014
and severally within a period of two (2) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The appellants are
entitled to the apportionment of the amount as directed by
the Tribunal. On such deposit, the appellants are permitted to
withdraw the amount without furnishing any security. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 09.01.2025
vsl
