Telangana High Court
Rasheeda Begum vs Ahmed Khan And Another on 25 June, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.582 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order
and Decree dated 06.02.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.435 of 2011 passed by
the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional
District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to
as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on
15.07.2010, while the deceased was going by the side of the road
and when she reached near Nasar Bai Hotel, Bodhan Road, at 7.30
PM an Auto bearing No.AP25W2748 driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner at high speed coming from Bodhan Bus
Stand dashed the deceased, as a result of which, she fell down and
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to the
Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad and was referred
to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and while she was being shifted
to Gandhi Hospital, she died. The claimants sought a
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. The respondent No.1 remained exparte.
ETD,J
MACMA No.582_2021
5. The Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments
with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and
income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of
the crime vehicle was not having valid driver license and that the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for consideration:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injuries
to the Rasheeda Begum and died due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.AP25W2748 by its
driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so,
to what quantum and which of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 and 2
and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RW1
was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and
decree, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant.
9. Heard the submissions of Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Grandhi Raj Kumar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.2.
ETD,J
MACMA No.582_2021
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
Tribunal has awarded a very low amount of compensation. He
further submitted that the deceased was a labourer and also was
selling vegetables and fruits and used to earn around Rs.15,000/-
to Rs.20,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has assessed the
income of Rs.3,000/- which is very low. He therefore, prayed to
enhance the compensation granted by the Tribunal by considering
the principles laid down by the Apex Court.
11. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has
submitted that the petitioner has not filed any proof of income and
that the Tribunal has granted a very reasonable amount under all
the heads and therefore, has prayed to uphold the same by
dismissing the appeal.
12. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the
following points for consideration:
1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation?
2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any
interference?
3. To what relief?
13. Point No.1:
a) PW1 is the daughter of the deceased, she asserted that her
deceased mother was aged 45 years and was working as a labourer
ETD,J
MACMA No.582_2021
and also used to sell fruits and vegetables and used to earn around
Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. No proof can be expected
in this regard.
b) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Apex Court has held
that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a
labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken. In the present
case, the deceased aged around 50 years used to sell fruits and
vegetables. Considering the age of the deceased and the avocation,
the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.3,000/- per month which appears to be justified.
c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, 25% of the income needs to
be added towards future prospects. The PME Report shows the age
of the deceased as '50' years, while PW1 deposed the age of her
mother to be '45' years at the time of accident. Considering the
PME Report, the age of the deceased is taken to be around 46-50
years, adding 25% towards future prospects i.e., 3,000 + 750
would give Rs.3,750/- per month, which comes to Rs.3,750/- x 12
= Rs.45,000/- per annum.
(2011) 12 SCC 236
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
ETD,J
MACMA No.582_2021
d) The deceased is survived by her daughter who is the
petitioner in this case. Thus the deduction is 1/3rd and after
deduction the annual income comes upto Rs.30,000/- i.e.,
(Rs.45,000-15,000).
e) The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of
the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3. The deceased being
aged around 46-50 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied
is '13. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as
Rs.3,90,000/- (30,000 x 13).
f) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss
of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and
the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.
g) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 4, the Apex Court has elaborately
discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi's case and has
further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children
of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore,
in the present case, the claimant would get Rs.48,400/- towards
2009 (6) SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA No.582_2021
loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this
head would be Rs.48,400/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further an
amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/-
towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded.
h) Therefore, in all the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation amounts:-
1. Loss of dependency 3,90,000/-
2. Loss of consortium 48,400/-
3. Loss of Estate 18,150/-
4. Loss of Funeral 18,150/-
Expenses
Total 4,74,700/-
i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is
entitled is calculated as Rs.4,74,700/- while the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.2,40,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is
entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is
answered accordingly.
14. POINT NO.2:
In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the
order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified by
enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,40,000/- to Rs. 4,74,700/-
which is found to be just and reasonable.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
ETD,J
MACMA No.582_2021
15. POINT NO.3:
In the result, the MACMA filed by the appellants is partly
allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 06.02.2015 in
M.V.O.P.No.435 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad,
enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,40,000/- to Rs. 4,74,700/-
and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @
7.5 % per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited.
Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount
with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if
any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellants are
entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any
security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.
No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 25.06.2025
ds
