Telangana High Court
B.Shankar vs Y. Srisailam on 23 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1388 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and Sri M. Ramakrishna, learned counsel
representing Sri K. Malleswara Rao, learned standing counsel for
respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-X Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil
Courts at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2847
of 2016, dated 13.06.2023, wherein, the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.6,48,000/- as against the claimed amount of
Rs.12,00,000/- on account of death of one B. Lalitha in a road
traffic accident.
3. On 15.08.2016 at 9.15 pm, the deceased as pillion rider on
Scooty bearing No.AP-9AJ-5332 driven by claimant No.1 was
proceeding towards Ghanapur village. When the Scooty reached the
outskirts of Allapur near Bhageeratha Water Tank, Toopran
Mandal, Medak District, the driver of the Goods carriage (Tipper
lorry) bearing No.AP 28 TD 6758 came in opposite direction in rash
and negligent manner in high speed, came to wrong side of the road
and dashed the Scooty. Due to said impact, the deceased fell from
the Scooter, sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.
Consequently, the claimant Nos.1 who is husband and the
claimant No.2 who is minor son of the deceased have filed claim
petition seeking compensation jointly and severally from the
respondent No.1-owner of crime vehicle, respondent No.2- insurer
and respondent No.3-driver of the crime vehicle.
4. The claimant No.1 got himself examined as PW1 and
exhibited Exs.A1 to A6. In response, the Insurance
Company/respondent No.2 exhibited Ex.B1 copy of Insurance
policy of the crime vehicle.
5. On the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties, the
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,48,200/- with interest at
7% per annum and the same is subject matter of the present
appeal.
6. In grounds of appeal, the claimants contended that the
income of the deceased was Rs.9,000/- per month as a cooli and
she was also looking after the affairs of the house. The Tribunal has
taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and
considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month on
the basis of Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and
others 1 is erroneous as said case pertains to the year 2001. In
case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the monthly
income of a daily wage labourer at Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the
income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.6,000/- per
month and interest ought to have been awarded at 9% per annum.
Hence, the appeal.
7. During arguments in appeal, the learned counsel for the
claimants contended that the Tribunal has taken the income of the
deceased meagerly at Rs.3,000/- per month when the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has taken the income of labourer at
Rs.4,500/- per month in Ramachandrappa's case (2 supra)
disposed of in the year 2011. Apart from being a cooli, the income
of the deceased as house wife was not taken into consideration and
therefore, there is an error in awarding the compensation. Lastly,
the counsel sought increase in the percentage of interest to be
awarded on the compensation awarded.
8. As per police record, the deceased was a cooli. As per
Ramachandrappa's case (2 supra), the income of a cooli has to be
(2001) 8 SCC 197
(2011) 13 SCC 236
taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. In addition, Rs.3,000/- is added
towards services rendered by the deceased as a house wife and the
total notional income is taken at Rs.7,500/- per month.
9. Coming to the compensation under the head of loss of
dependency to which the claimants are entitled, as per National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3, 40% future
prospects has to be added as the deceased was self-employed.
Thus, the net monthly income comes to Rs.10,500/- (Rs.7,500/- +
Rs.3,000/-). Considering the net annual income at Rs.1,26,000/-
(Rs.10,500x12), if 1/3rd of the said income is deducted towards
personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the
claimants would be Rs.84,000/-. If the said amount is multiplied
by the appropriate multiplier '17' as was rightly taken by the
Tribunal relying on Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 4, the total compensation under the head of 'loss of
dependency' would be Rs.14,28,000/-. Further, the Tribunal had
awarded an amount of Rs.44,000/- towards loss of consortium and
Rs.33,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In
addition thereof, claimant No.2 who is minor son of the deceased is
entitled to Rs.44,000/- under the head of 'parental consortium'.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
Thus, in all, the total compensation payable would be
Rs.15,49,000/- instead of Rs.6,48,200/- as awarded by the
Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation
amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from
Rs.6,48,200/- to Rs.15,49,000/-, which shall carry interest at 9%
p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the
date of realization. However, the claimants shall pay the deficit
Court Fee on the enhanced compensation. The compensation
amount shall be apportioned among the claimants in the same
proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed
by the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall deposit the said
amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit, claimant No.1 is permitted to withdraw
his respective share amount without furnishing any security. As far
as claimant No.2 is concerned, he is entitled to withdraw his share
after attaining majority. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 23.07.2025
gvl
