Indur Anitha vs A. R. Swamy Goud
2025 Latest Caselaw 3886 Tel

Telangana High Court

Indur Anitha vs A. R. Swamy Goud on 13 June, 2025

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                  M.A.C.M.A.NO.708 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:

This appeal has been preferred under Section 170 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act, 1988') by

the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the Award and

decree passed in O.P.No.860 of 2007, dated 22.03.2010, by

the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-(VIII

Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, 'the

Tribunal'), whereunder and whereby the Tribunal partly

allowed the O.P. granting compensation of Rs.6,42,000/-

with interest @ 9% per annum for the death Indur Yadagiri

Goud (hereinafter referred to 'as the deceased') in a road

accident occurred on 17.06.2007.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties

hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the

Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the

claimants are wife, children and parents of the deceased,

who died in a road accident occurred on 17.06.2007. The

deceased is working as labourer in toddy depot No.II, NNR,J 2 Macma_708_2020

Nizamabad. On 17.06.2007 at 11:30 PM, the deceased

along with other labourers was travelling in Eicher Van

bearing No.AP-25-U-7303 with a load of toddy bottles in

crates and when the said vehicle crossed the bypass road

of Arsapally at Dubba Shivar, the driver of the Van drove

the vehicle rashly and negligently at high speed, as a result

of which the deceased fell down from the Van and

sustained serious injuries. Immediately after the accident,

the deceased was shifted to Pragati Hospital, Nizamabad

and while undergoing treatment he died on the same day.

The deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by

working as labourer in toddy depot. According to the

claimants, the accident has occurred only on account of

rash and negligent driving of driver of Van and respondent

Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of Eicher Van are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the

claimants.

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit

admitting that on 17.06.2007 at 11:30 PM the deceased

was travelling in the subject vehicle as a labourer and on

account of rash and negligent driving of driver of subject NNR,J 3 Macma_708_2020

vehicle, the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and died

in the hospital. He further stated that the said vehicle

belongs to Toddy Cooperative Society Limited-II of

Nizamabad, but the vehicle is nominally registered in name

of respondent No.1 as he is one of the members of the

Society. He also further submitted that the vehicle is

insured with respondent No.2 and driver is also having

valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Therefore,

respondent No.2 is only liable to pay compensation to the

claimants.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying all the

allegations made in the claimant petition, including the

manner of accident and sustaining of injuries by the

deceased on account of rash and negligent driving of driver

of subject vehicle. He further stated that the subject

vehicle was duly insured vide package policy

No.050700/31/01/01/00003323 and the insurance was

valid from 29.03.2007 to 28.03.2008 and the liability is

strictly governed by the terms and conditions of the policy.

He disputed the claim of the claimants and hence, he prays

to dismiss the O.P. NNR,J 4 Macma_708_2020

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal

framed the following issues for consideration:

"(i) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Eicher Van bearing No.AP-25-U-7303 by its driver?

(ii) Whether the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident and whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(iii) To what relief?"

7. During the course of enquiry, the wife of the

deceased (claimant No.1) herself examined as P.W.1

besides examining P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.A.1 to

A.10. On behalf of the respondents R.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.5.

8. The Tribunal, after considering the entire

evidence both oral and documentary evidence produced by

the claimants and respondents, came to the conclusion

that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of driver of vehicle i.e., Eicher Van bearing No.AP-

25-U-7303 and accordingly, granted compensation of

Rs.6,42,000/- with interest @9% per annum. Being NNR,J 5 Macma_708_2020

aggrieved and unsatisfied with the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal, the appellants-claimants preferred the

present appeal.

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Insurance

company. Perused the record.

10. The only point that arises for consideration

in this appeal is "whether the appellants are entitled

for enhancement of compensation?"

11. POINT:

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits

that except reproducing and extracting the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma and others v.

Delhi Transport Corporation 1, the Tribunal did not

double the salary of the deceased as held in the said

judgment and calculate loss of earnings of the deceased.

He further submits that at the time of accident, deceased is

working as labourer in the Toddy Depot and he used earn

an amount of Rs.6,200/- per month and to prove the same,

AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104 NNR,J 6 Macma_708_2020

Exs.A.7 salary certificate and A.8 Extract of salary register

of the deceased were produced. But, the Tribunal without

considering the same and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3,

fixed salary of deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month only

based on figment of imagination. He further submits that

the Tribunal has awarded only meagre compensation to the

appellants. He also submits that though the appellants

produced Exs.A.7 and A.8 certificates showing that the

deceased is an employee of 1st respondent and earning

monthly salary of Rs.6,200/-, erroneously the Tribunal

observed that the deceased is not an employee of 1st

respondent and he was employee of the Toddy Depot. He

further submits that the Tribunal awarded meagre

amounts under different heads and hence, he prays to

grant compensation as claimed by the appellants-

claimants.

12. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2

submits that the appellants are not entitled for interest as

there is delay of 3075 days in filing the appeal. He further

contended that the Tribunal after considering the entire

material on record rightly granted compensation to the NNR,J 7 Macma_708_2020

appellants and there are no grounds to interfere with the

impugned Award and hence, he prays to dismiss the

appeal.

13. According to the appellants, the deceased was

working as labourer in the toddy depot and the accident

took place during the course of his employment. The wife

the deceased herself examined as P.W.1 besides examining

P.W.2 an eyewitness to the accident and P.W.3 the

employer of the deceased. P.W.2 deposed that the

deceased is working as labourer in Toddy Cooperative

Society (TCS) No.II, Nizamabad, and the deceased was his

co-worker. On the date of accident, he along with the

deceased and other labourers loaded toddy boxes into the

Van and after loading the same, they boarded the Van in

order to go to Toddy shop at Kotagally, Nizamabad and

when the Van reached bypass road of Arsapally at Dubba,

the driver of the Van drove the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed, due to which the deceased

jumped from the Van, sustained serious injuries and died

in the hospital while undergoing treatment. P.W.3 is the

President of the Society who deposed that the deceased NNR,J 8 Macma_708_2020

was appointed as labourer of the Society and he is drawing

monthly salary of Rs.6,200/-. P.W.3 also issued Ex.A.7-

Salary certificate and Ex.A.8 attested copy of extract of the

salary register of the deceased. But, the Tribunal without

considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and documents

marked, taken into consideration the dictum laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case and

calculated the compensation, which is erroneous.

14. Before the Tribunal, the case of the respondents

is that the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2

under Ex.B.5 policy. But R.W.-2 M.V.Krishna Rao, Senior

Assistant of respondent No.2 says that respondent No.1

paid premium to cover the risk of six (6) employees and as

per IMT No.39 of the policy, there is risk cover for driver,

cleaner and 4 employees engaged for loading and

unloading goods of the vehicle. The deceased was labourer

of toddy depot of Dubba, Nizamabad, but he was not

employed by the respondent No.1 and that as on the date

of accident, the deceased was illegally travelling by sitting

on the toddy boxes on the Van, as such there is no risk

cover for the deceased under the policy. In the cross NNR,J 9 Macma_708_2020

examination, R.W.2 admits that he paid additional

premium to cover the risk of labourers.

15. The consistent version of P.W.3, employer of the

deceased and R.W.1 owner of the vehicle is that as on the

date of accident, the deceased was travelling in the Van

along with other labourers to unload the toddy boxes in

Kotagally toddy shop. R.W.2 in his cross-examination

admits that as per the policy, the address of the insured is

mentioned as A.R.Swamy Goud (respondent No.1). If really,

the Van was not concerned with the society, the address of

the insured could be mentioned the residential address of

respondent No.1, but not the address of the society. The

deceased was labourer in the said society and his job also

includes not only filling toddy in empty bottles, but also

loading the toddy bottles into the Van and unloading of the

same. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling in the Van

by sitting on the toddy boxes along with other labourers on

the date of accident. Therefore, it can be said that he was

travelling in the capacity of labourer but not as an

unauthorized or gratuitous passenger.

NNR,J 10 Macma_708_2020

16. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case and

applied the facts therein to the present facts of the case

and held that the appellants herein were entitled for

Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000 towards

consortium to (wife of the deceased) and Rs.5,000/-

towards loss of estate under conventional head. Further,

the Tribunal also held that appellant Nos.2 and 5 are

daughters of the deceased aged 3 ½ years each and they

are deprived of love and affection of the deceased due to

sudden death of the deceased in the accident and awarded

an amount of Rs.10,000/- each towards loss of 'love and

affection'. The evidence of P.W.3 and Exs.A.7 and A.8

clearly go to show that the deceased was earning an

amount of Rs.6,200/- per month. According to P.W.3, the

work of the deceased was filling toddy in empty bottles and

loading toddy bottles into Van, for which the Tribunal fixed

monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-. Though the

Tribunal accepted the evidence of P.W.3, did not accept

Exs.A.7 and A.8, salary certificate and extract of salary

certificate of the deceased, as the appellants have not NNR,J 11 Macma_708_2020

produced any record before the Tribunal. But having

regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

present state of conditions, in the opinion of this Court as

the subject accident has occurred in the year 2007 and the

deceased was aged about 26 years, obviously he is hale

and healthy at the time of accident, the Tribunal having

accepted the evidence of P.W.3 and Exs.A.7 and A.8 ought

not to have awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month

as salary without any basis and the same requires

modification of income of deceased and the same has to be

taken at Rs.6,200/- per month.

17. The Tribunal, having relied upon Exs.A.3 and

A.4, certified copies of inquest report and post-mortem

examination report, respectively, has rightly considered the

age of the deceased at 26 years. As per column '4' of the

table prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla

Verma's case, the relevant multiplier in respect of the

deceased who are aged about 26 to 30 years will be '17'.

18. There is no dispute regarding age of the

deceased, which was taken by the Tribunal. This Court is

of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly applied the NNR,J 12 Macma_708_2020

relevant multiplier '17' as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case considering the age

of the deceased as 26 years, which needs no interference.

When the monthly income of the deceased would be taken

at Rs.6,200/- per month, the annual income of the

deceased would come to at Rs.74,400/- (Rs.6,200 x 12).

Considering the age of the deceased, 40% to be added as

future prospects as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi and others 2, on the annual income of the

deceased. The future prospectus of the deceased would

come to Rs.1,04,160/- (Rs.74,400+24,760). Since the

dependents are five in number, if 1/4th is to be deducted

towards his personal expenses, then the annual income of

the deceased would come to Rs.78,120 (Rs.1,04,160 x 1/4).

Since the age of the deceased is 26 years at the time of

accident, the relevant multiplier is '17' and after applying

the same, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.78,120

x 17 = Rs,13,28,040/-. Apart from the aforesaid amount,

(2017) 16 SCC 860 NNR,J 13 Macma_708_2020

the appellants were granted an amount of Rs.48,400/-

Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and an amount of

Rs.18,150/- towards loss of estate. However the Tribunal

has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head

and 'Love and affection' which appears to be contrary to

the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @

Satwinder Kaur And Ors 3 wherein it was held thus:

"The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate

AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3076 NNR,J 14 Macma_708_2020

conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head."

19. In the light of Satinder Kaur's case (supra)

this Court is opinion that the compensation amount

awarded under the head of 'Love and Affection' ought not

have been granted by the Tribunal and accordingly, the

same has to be deducted from the compensation amount.

S.No.               Description                    Amount
                                                   awarded
                                                 (in Rupees)

1.        Loss of dependency                     13,28,040-00

2.        Consortium to Spousal, filial            2,42,000-00
          and parental to respective
          appellants @ Rs.48,400/-
          each (Rs.48,400x5)
3.        Loss of Estate                            18,150-00

4.        Funeral expenses                          18,150-00

5.        Loss of love and affection
                                                  (-)10,000-00
          Deduct the amount granted under the
          head 'Love and affection" as per
          Satinder Kaur's case
                                         TOTAL   16,06,340-00

20. In view of re-assessment made by this Court,

the appellants are entitled for total compensation of NNR,J 15 Macma_708_2020

Rs.16,06,340/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Six Thousand Three

hundred and forty only) as against the compensation

awarded by the learned Tribunal i.e., Rs.6,42,000-. I hold

that this point is answered accordingly in favour of the

appellants.

21. There is no denial about the liability fixed on

respondent No.2 by the Tribunal. The appellants preferred

the present appeal against the award passed by the

Tribunal imposing liability on respondent No.2 on the

ground that there is risk covered in respect of death of the

deceased. Further, Ex.B.5 policy clearly shows that the risk

covers labourers travelling in the vehicle for loading and

unloading of articles, as such it can only be said that the

deceased was travelling in the capacity of labourer but not

as unauthorized or gratuitous passenger. Considering the

evidence placed by the appellants and in view of

reassessment made by this Court, appellants are entitled

for compensation of Rs.16,06,340/- payable by respondent

Nos.1 and 2 with interest @9% per annum on the

enhanced amount.

NNR,J 16 Macma_708_2020

22. It is pertinent to mention that the appellants

have filed claim petition claiming compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/-. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh 4 it was held that

the Motor Vehicle Act being beneficial legislation and same

should be interpreted in favour of the affected persons and

this Courts are not barred from awarding the

compensation which the appellants are entitled to basing

on the assessment made, being the just compensation. As

such, though the appellants have claimed an amount of

Rs.12,00,000/-, however, in view of the above calculation

and reassessment and the law laid down in the Nagappa's

case (supra), the appellants are entitled for enhanced

compensation.

23. In the result, the appeal is allowed enhancing

the compensation from Rs.6,42,000/- to Rs.16,06,340/-

(Rupees Sixteen lakhs Six thousand Three hundred and

forty only) with interest at rate of 9% per annum on the

enhanced amount (except 3784 days of delay) which was

2003 (2) SCC 274 NNR,J 17 Macma_708_2020

condoned by this Court on 28.11.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2020

subject to appellants foregoing the interest for said period.

Further, the respondents are directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation together with costs and interest

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of

this order. On such deposit, the appellants are entitled to

apportion the said compensation as per apportionment

made by the Tribunal and thereafter permitted to withdraw

the same. However, the appellants are directed to pay

deficit court fee on the enhanced amount within two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Date:13.06.2025 YVL