Telangana High Court
Smt. B.Hemalatha vs Mohd. Yousuf on 19 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2804 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned
standing counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
Perused the entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants
aggrieved by the award passed by the learned XIII Addl. Chief
Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short
'the Tribunal'), in M.V.O.P.No.1313 of 2014, dated 30.01.2017.
3. The claim petition was filed by the appellants on account of
death of one B. Mrutyunjai in an accident which took place on
22.03.2014 at 8.45am near Reddy's Laboratories, Bachupally,
Quthbullapur Mandal, Hyderabad, Cyberabad District.
4. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the claimants, the
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,18,000/- with interest at
9% per annum as against the claim of Rs.12,00,000/-.
5. The occurrence of accident and liability of the respondents to
pay compensation are not in dispute.
6. The only ground for filing the appeal is that the claim petition
is filed seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- whereas the
Tribunal has awarded only Rs.6,18,000/- with interest at 9% per
annum.
7. In the grounds of appeal, it is contended that the income of
the deceased is taken as Rs.70,000/- per annum instead of
Rs.15,000/- per month as he was working in hotel situated at DRL
Project in Compass Group India Service Ltd. Further, proper
consortium is not awarded. Hence, this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
8. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 52
years and the same is challenged alleging that the deceased was
aged about 50 years on the date of accident. On this count,
documentary evidence is defective showing the age of the deceased
as 35 years in the charge sheet. In fact, the entire crime record
shows the age of the deceased as 35 years. At the time of filing the
claim petition, the age of the deceased is shown to be 50 years. The
Tribunal compared the age of appellant No.2 (daughter of deceased)
at 24 years and arrived the age of deceased at 52 years which does
not have any basis except comparison. Additionally, the age as
deposed by PW1 is that is that the deceased was aged 52 years. On
the basis of evidence of PW1, the age of the deceased is taken as 52
years and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
said finding given by the learned Tribunal. The admitted facts need
not be proven as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
PW1 i.e. wife of the deceased has filed an affidavit stating the age of
the deceased to be 52 years and therefore, the appellants now
cannot retract their own statement and claim age of the deceased
to be 50 years.
9. Coming to the aspect of income of the deceased, the wife of
the deceased deposed that he had income of Rs.15,000/- per
month by working as a Steward in DRL Project in Compass Ground
(India) Services. As per police record, the deceased was a contract
employee working as a Canteen boy. There can be no expectation of
payment of Rs.15,000/- per month as a Canteen boy. Hence, the
notional income of the deceased in the year 2014 as a Canteen boy
is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. The number of dependants are
'2' in number and therefore, 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted
towards personal expenses. The learned Tribunal failed to award
future prospects to the income of the deceased.
10. Considering the monthly income at Rs.6,000/- and age of the
deceased as 52 years as on the date of accident, as per judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others 1, if future prospects at 10% i.e.,
Rs.600/- is added to the monthly income, the net monthly income
comes to Rs.6,600/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.600/-). From the net annual
income of Rs.79,200/- (Rs.6,600x12), if 1/3rd is deducted towards
personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the
claimants would be Rs.52,800/-. If the said amount is multiplied
by the appropriate multiplier '11' as was rightly taken by the
Tribunal relying on Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 2, the total compensation under the head of 'loss of
dependency' would be Rs.5,80,800/- instead of Rs.5,13,000/-
which was awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the learned Tribunal
has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- for loss of consortium,
Rs.30,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- for loss of
estate. However, in view of Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra), the said
finding is set aside. This Court is of the considered opinion that
claimants are entitled to Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses and
loss of estate (Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). In
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
addition thereof, claimants who are wife and daughter of the
deceased are entitled Rs.44,000/- each towards consortium.
11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the claimants are
entitled to the following amounts under different heads:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.5,80,800/-
(2) Funeral expenses and Rs.33,000/-
Loss of Estate
(3) Loss of spousal consortium Rs.44,000/- for appellant
No.1
(4) Loss of parental consortium Rs.44,000/- for appellant
No.2
Total compensation awarded Rs.7,01,800/-
12. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.6,18,000/- to Rs.7,01,800/- as hereunder:
a) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 9%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
b) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the
compensation amount along with interest within a
period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
judgment.
c) On such deposit, the appellants/ claimants are entitled
to withdraw the entire amount in proportion to their
shares awarded by the Tribunal, without furnishing the
security.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 19.06.2025
gvl
