Telangana High Court

Gugulothu Suguna , Sujatha And 4 Others vs Abdul Rub And 2 Others on 12 June, 2025

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.176 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal against the

Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, (hereinafter

referred to 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.697 of 2012, dated 16.10.2017,

wherein claimants/petitioners had filed the claim petition, seeking

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death Sri Lakpathi,

(herein after referred to as 'the deceased') who died in accident occurred

on 07.02.2012.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier

filed M.V.O.P.No.697 of 2012 under Section 166(1)(c) of the M.V.Act,

1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in

the accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of

the lorry driver. It is contended that on 07.02.2012, the deceased was

proceeding on his two wheeler Bajaj CT 100 Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-

23-L-8522 and when he reached at the outskirts of Konayapalli Village,

the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-2475 had parked the lorry in

the middle of the road without taking any precautions and without

NNR,J

switching on the parking lights or indictors. While, the deceased was

proceeding on motor cycle, due to focus of opposite coming vehicles, the

deceased went to the back side of the parked lorry and hit the stationed

lorry, as a result, the deceased fell down on the ground and sustained

grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. The Police

registered a case in Crime No.35 of 2012 under Section 304-A of IPC

against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle and seized the

said lorry. The appellants/claimants claimed an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under

various heads.

3. The contention of the claimants/appellants before the Tribunal,

was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 35

years and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing business at

Vemulawada temple by selling puffed rice (pelalu) and fried Bengal

gram (putnalu). Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their

dependency.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the lorry

and respondent No.2-driver of the lorry remained ex-parte. Respondent

No.3 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, file counter-

affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including

NNR,J

the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income

of the deceased and submitted that driver of the offending lorry bearing

No.AP-15-X-2475 as well as the deceased who was rider Bajaj CT-100

motor cycle bearing No.AP-23-L-8522 both were not holding valid

driving license at the time of accident and the said vehicles were not

road worthy to ply and further contended that the compensation

claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads

as under:

i) Whether the ACCIDENT HAD occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-2475 driven by its driver/R.1?

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

iii) To what relief?

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into

the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the

learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of

Rs.6,70,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum.

NNR,J

7. Being aggrieved and unsatisfied by the compensation amount

awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the

claimants/petitioners on the ground that at the time of the accident, the

deceased was aged 35 years and was doing business in selling the

puffed rice and dried Bengal gram, thereby earning Rs.8,000/- per

month and also doing agriculture, but the learned Tribunal did not

consider the above averments and fixed the income of the deceased at

Rs.5,000/- which is very meager and the learned Tribunal has not

awarded just and fair compensation amount under other heads.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that there

is no dispute with regard to accident, the injuries sustained by the

deceased and the death of the deceased. During the course of enquiry,

PW1 & PW2 were examined and Exhibits A.1 to A.7 were marked.

Learned counsel further contended that PW1 is the wife of the deceased

who explained the whole incident, but she is not eye-witness. PW2-Sri

Malyala Malliah, who is eyewitness to accident narrated the said

accident and deposed that the accident occurred only due to negligence

of the driver of the offending lorry .

9. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal having accepted

the fact that deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry,

NNR,J

but without considering the evidence in proper manner with regard to

income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has fixed the deceased's

income at Rs.5,000/- per month and also not awarded just

compensation under the various head as per the judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay

Sethi and others 1.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has supported the

Awarded and submits that after considering the entire evidence

available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just

compensation, which needs no interference.

11. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2.

12. Heard Sri Mahboob Hussain, learned counsel for the

appellants/petitioners and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel

for the respondent No.3- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.

Perused the material on record.

13. Admittedly, the respondents have not filed cross-appeal against

the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute

1 2017 ACJ 2700

NNR,J

regarding liability of the respondents, age of the deceased and accident.

The only point arouse before this Court in this appeal is that:

i) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?

Point No.1:

14. Admittedly, the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in

the accident occurred on 07.02.2012. The petitioners claimed that the

deceased used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month, however, no income

certificate has been produced and also there is no other documentary

proof such as relevant account books or bank entries in proof of

deceased earning of Rs.8,000/- per month. But looking at the records

available and the averments made by both the learned counsels before

this Court, it is evident that the deceased was doing business in selling

the puffed rice and dried Bengal gram which is neither disputed nor

rebutted. Hence, consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 2 wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court held that even when there is no proof of income and

earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated by the Court and can

be assessed considering the ground realities.

2 2001(8) SCC 197

NNR,J

15. The learned Tribunal fixed the monthly notional income of the

deceased at Rs.5,000/- appears to be reasonable, as the deceased was

un-skilled labourer and the same was admitted by the petitioners, hence

considering the ground realities and facts of the case, this Court do not

find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal in

fixing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-. However, the

Tribunal did not add income under future prospects to the monthly

income of the deceased in terms judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others 3 and also not awarded just compensation under various

conventional heads.

16. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to reassess the

compensation by taking notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/-

per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi

and others 4 and considering the age of the deceased as 35 years as per

PME report, an additional 40% of the income has to be added towards

future prospects to the monthly income of the deceased. Therefore, the

monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- +

3 2017 ACJ 2700

4 2017 ACJ 2700

NNR,J

Rs.2,000/-). The annual income of the deceased would come to

Rs.84,000/- (Rs.12,600/- X 12) and, out of which, 1/4 has to be

deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased as there are

five dependants in number. Then the actual annual income would come

to Rs.63,000/- (Rs.84,000/- (-) Rs.21,000/-) for assessing the

compensation.

17. As per the column No.4 of Table prescribed fixed in the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation 5, and considering the age of the deceased as 35 years, the

appropriate multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '16'. Thus,

the total loss of dependency to the petitioners would come to

Rs.10,08,000/- (63,000/- x 16) (Annual Income x relevant Multiplier).

18. The appellants/claimants are further entitled to Rs.18,150/-

Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,150/-

(Rs.15,000/- + 10% + 10%) towards funeral expenses, as per Pranay

Sethi's Judgment (cited supra).

19. Further, considering the appellant No.1 being the wife of deceased,

appellant No.1 is entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under the head of

5 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

NNR,J

'loss of spousal consortium' as per Pranay Sethi's Judgment (cited

supra).

20. Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 being children of the deceased, the appellant

No. 2 & 3 are entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.96,800/-

(Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of 'loss of parental consortium', as per

Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs.Nanu Ram alis

Chuhru Ram 6

21. Appellant Nos.4 & 5 being the parents of the deceased, the

appellant Nos.4 & 5 are entitled for compensation to a sum of

Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400 x 2) under the head of 'loss of filial consortium'

as per Magma's Judgment (cited supra)

22. In Sarla Verma's case (cited above), the Hon'ble Apex Court,

while elaborating the concept of 'just compensation' observed as under:

"Post compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying, the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."

23. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited

2018 (18) SCC 130

NNR,J

decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimants are entitled for

enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above

and given in the table below for easy reference

24. Considering the above assessment made by this Court, appellants

would be entitled to as follows:

i)      Annual Income (of the deceased)
        Rs.5,000/- X 12   =   Rs.60,000/-

ii)      Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
         Prospects (Annual Income X 40%) =
         Rs.60,000/- + Rs.24,000/-    =     Rs.84,000/-

iii)    Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/4

deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.84,000/- (-) Rs.21,000/- = Rs.63,000/-

iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.63,000/- x 16 = Rs.10.08,000/-

v) Claimants' entitlement towards conventional heads = Loss of Estate + Funeral Expenses + loss of spousal consortium + loss of filal consortium + Parental Consortium = Rs.2,78,300/-

Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400 + Rs.96,800 + 96,800 =

Total Rs.12,86,300/-

25. By considering the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa

Vs.Gurudayal Singh 7, the compensation can be awarded more than

the claimed amount". Therefore, the petitioners/ appellants/claimants

2003 (2) SCC 274

NNR,J

are entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.12,86,300/- as

against the awarded amount of Rs.6,70,000/- by the learned Tribunal.

26. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal

has rightly awarded the rate of interest i.e., at 7 % per annum, which

needs no interference. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the