Telangana High Court

Balla Vykuntam vs T. Ramesh on 20 June, 2025

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                       M.A.C.M.A.No.343 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellant/claimant/petitioner under

Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in

M.V.O.P.No.1403 of 2017, dated 07.11.2019, seeking compensation of

Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of the death of Balla Bhagyamma (wife of

petitioner), (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") in an accident that

occurred on 13.04.2017.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they

are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant earlier filed

M.V.O.P.No.1403 of 2017 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 and

Rule 455 of M.V.Rules 1989, seeking compensation for the death of the

deceased, who died in the accident alleged to have caused due to rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the Setwin bus. It is contended

that on 13.04.2017, the deceased while returning to her home after

completion of her duty. While the deceased was waiting at bus-stop, the

NNR,J

offending Vehicle Setwin bus bearing No.AP-09-TA-2293, came in rash

and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed the deceased due to

which she fell down and sustained serious fractures and died on the

spot. The Police, have registered a case vide Crime No.92 of 2017, under

Section 304¬A of IPC against driver of the offending vehicle i.e.,

Respondent No.1. The appellant/claimant claimed an amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased under

various heads.

4. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal, was that

petitioner lost his spouse due to the accident and there is no one to look

after the family of the deceased and the petitioner has to depend on

others for their day to day basic needs and prayed the Tribunal to

award just compensation.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, both the respondent No.1-Driver of

the offending Setwin bus; and respondent No.2-Owner of the Setwin bus

remained ex-parte. Respondent No.3 - United India Insurance Company

Limited, filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the

claim petition and contended that the offending Setwin Bus driver did

not drove the Setwin Bus in negligent manner and due to the deceased

self negligence the said accident occurred and further contended that

NNR,J

the compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

6. 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 death of the deceased Balla Bhagyamma, was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Setwin bus bearing No.AP09TA2293 driven by its driver?

ii) ) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so,to what extent and from whom ?

iii) To what relief ?

7. To prove the petitioner's case, PWs.1 & 2 were examined and

marked Exs.A1 to A5. None examined on behalf of the respondents,

however Ex.B1-copy of the insurance policy was marked.

8. After considering the material on record and the evidence placed

by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in

part and granted compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- along with interest @

6% per annum.

9. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount

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

NNR,J

ground that the deceased was aged about 43 years at the date of

accident and was doing House-keeping work in SBI and earning

Rs.9,000/- per month and was contributing the same to the welfare of

the family, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the above

averments and fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per

month and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair

compensation amount under other heads.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimant submits that there is

no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained and death of the

deceased. In trial, PW1 & PW2 were examined. Exhibits A.1 to A.5 were

marked on behalf of petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that

PW2 narrated the said accident and submits the deceased who was

standing and waiting for the arrival of the bus, the driver of bus drove

the offending vehicle, in rash and negligent manner and caused the

accident. The learned Tribunal having accepted the fact that deceased

succumbed to injuries sustained in the acceded caused due to rash and

negligent driving of Setwin bus, 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.4,000/- per month and

also not awarded just compensation under various heads as per the

NNR,J

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that after

considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal

has awarded just compensation and needs no interference.

13. None appear for respondent No.1 & 2.

14. Heard Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner and Sri P.Bhavana Rao, learned counsel for the

respondent No.3 - Insurance Company. Perused the material on record.

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

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

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

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

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?

Point No.1:

1 2017 ACJ 2700

NNR,J

16. Admittedly, the deceased died due to accident occurred on

13.04.2017, alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner of

the Setwin bus driver and the petitioner lost his wife (deceased) in an

unfortunate accident. The petitioner claimed that the deceased was

working as House Keeper in SBI and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month,

however there is no other documentary proof the same, such as relevant

account books or bank entries to show that the deceased was earning

Rs.9,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioner/claimant. But

looking at the records available, the averments and submissions made

by both the learned counsels before this Court, it is evident that the

deceased was aged about 43 years who was hale and healthy and would

have earned more than the monthly income which the learned Tribunal

has granted. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 2, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the

income can reasonably be estimated and assessed by the Courts,

considering the ground realities, hence the compensation granted by the

learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the notional income of the

deceased @ Rs.4,000/- per month appears to be meager.

2 2001(8) SCC 197

NNR,J

17. Hence considering the ground realities and the age of the deceased

was 43 years who was hale and health at the time of accident and by

following the law laid down by Hon'ble Suprmem Court in Latha

Wadhwa's case (cited supra), this Court is of the opinion that the

deceased would obviously earn Rs.250/- per day by doing House-

keeping work or any other odd job accordingly, the deceased income can

be notionally taken as Rs.7,500/- per month. Apart from that, as per

the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3 and considering the

age of the deceased as 43 years, additional 25% 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.9,375/- (Rs.7,500/- + Rs.1,875/-). The annual income of the

deceased would come to Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.9,375/- X 12) and, out of

which, 1/2 has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the

deceased, as there was only one dependant on the deceased income as

claimed by the petitioner at the time of the accident. Then the actual

annual income would come to Rs.56,250/- (Rs.1,12,500/- (-)

Rs.56,250/-).

3 2017 ACJ 2700

NNR,J

18. As per the column No.4 of schedule prescribed in the judgment of

the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4, and

considering the age of the deceased as 43 years, the appropriate

multiplier applicable for the deceased's age is '14'. Thus, the total loss

of dependency would come to Rs.7,87,500/- (56,250/- x 14).

19. The appellants/claimant is 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).

20. The sole appellant/claimant being the spouse of the deceased, the

appellant is entitled for compensation to a sum of Rs.48,400/- under

the head of 'loss of spousal consortium', as per Pranay Sethi's

Judgment (cited supra).

21. 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."

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

NNR,J

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

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

decisions. I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to

enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above

and given in the table for easy reference

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

would be entitled for the compensation as follows:

i)     Annual Income (of the deceased)
       Rs.7,500/- X 12   =   Rs.90,000/-

ii)     Total Annual Income = Annual Income + Future
        Prospects (Annual Income X 25%) =
        Rs.90,000/- + Rs.22,500/-   =      Rs.1,12,500/-

iii) Annual Dependency = Total Annual Income - 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased = Rs.1,12,500/- (-) Rs.56,250/- = Rs.56,250/-

iv) Total Dependency = Annual Dependency x Applied Multiplier = Rs.56,250/- x 14 = Rs.7,87,500/-


v)     Claimant's entitlement towards conventional heads =
       Loss of Estate + loss of Spousal Consortium =
       Rs.18,150/- + Rs.18,150/- + Rs.48,400    =
                                                              Rs.84,700/-
       Total                                                 Rs.8,72,200/-

24. Thus, the appellant/claimant are entitled to the enhanced

compensation of Rs.8,72,000/- as against the awarded amount of

Rs.4,90,000/- by the learned Tribunal.

NNR,J

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

has rightly awarded the rate of interest i.e., at 6 % per annum, which

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

petitioner/claimant are entitled to interest @ 6 % on the enhanced

amount.

26. Hence, the sole claimant is entitled for an enhanced compensation

of Rs.8,72,000/- Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part,

enhancing the compensation from Rs. 4,90,000/- to