Telangana High Court
Smt. Thammarashi Anasuya vs Sri Narasimha Battu on 26 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.433 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
-
Heard Sri K.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants
and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants
aggrieved by the order, dated 22.12.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.76 of
2021 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein
a compensation of Rs.18,42,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum
was awarded as against the claim petition filed seeking compensation
of Rs.25,00,000/-.
3. The appellants had filed the claim petition on account of death of
one Chakali Ramesh @ Thammarasi Ramesh on 30.12.2020 at about
2.00 P.M. while he was travelling on motorcycle bearing No.TS 16 EQ
5254 from petrol bunk Arli Cross Road towards Rajura Village and was
struck by car bearing No.TS 18B 3006 driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner resulting in fall of Chakali Ramesh and his death
on 01.01.2021 at about 12:00 noon while he was undergoing
treatment at Prathibha Hospital, Nizamabad. The appellants had
examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. In support of
the claim petition, the respondents did not lead oral evidence but
relied upon Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy which was marked with
consent. Upon examining the evidence adduced by both the parties,
the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.18,42,800/-. The appellants
are aggrieved by the compensation awarded and preferred the present
appeal.
4. In grounds of appeal, the appellants referred to age of the
deceased at 32 years who was doing plumbing work in Dubai and was
earning Rs.50,000/- per month. The deceased had wife, minor
daughters and parents. More particularly, reference is made to Ex.A6
original passport Visa stamp, Ex.A7 original UAE ID card to show that
the deceased was working as plumber at Dubai. The Tribunal had
taken the notional income as Rs.8,000/- with future prospects taken at
Rs.11,200/- and calculated the loss of income. Further, it is urged that
no compensation is awarded towards medical treatment and funeral
expenses. In the circumstances, the appellant sought enhancement of
compensation to Rs.25,00,000/-.
5. The issues raised by the appellants are taken in sequence
beginning with the notional income taken by the Tribunal. As per the
complaint given by Thammarasi Bhumanna, who is the brother of the
deceased and as per Ex.A1-FIR, the deceased was a washerman doing
the occupation of his caste which was washing clothes. Further, as per
Ex.A2-charge sheet, the deceased was doing washerman job. As per
Ex.A3, the deceased was a cooli. None of the police records supported
the version of the appellants about the deceased being a plumber. The
only supporting documents relied upon by the appellants are Ex.A6-
passport of the deceased which contains VISA issued by United Arab
Emirates showing that he was an ordinary labourer. The appellants
would contend that the deceased went to do work in UAE on behalf of
a company and therefore his income has to be taken as Rs.25,000/- to
Rs.40,000/- per month. The total documentary evidence on record
shows that in India, the deceased was working as a washerman and in
UAE, he was working as an ordinary labourer and not doing technically
skilled plumbing work. There is absolutely no evidence on record to
show the income of the deceased. Any labourer or washerman as per
the earnings in India would be around Rs.8,000/- per month.
However, by virtue of the fact that the deceased actually went to Dubai
to do labour work by leaving the family and his friends is only on
account of getting higher income, the notional income is therefore
taken as Rs.10,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- per
year. As per passport, the date of birth of the deceased was
01.01.1985 and he died on 01.01.2021. Therefore, his age would be
35 years.
6. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
others 1, if future prospects are added at 40% i.e. Rs.48,000/- is
added to the annual income, the net annual income comes to
Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.48,000/-). Since there are five
dependents on the deceased, if 1/4th of the income is deducted
towards personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to
the family would be Rs.1,26,000/-. If the said amount is multiplied by
the appropriate multiplier '16' as was rightly taken by the Tribunal
relying on Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the total
compensation under the head of loss of dependency would be
Rs.20,16,000/-. In addition, the appellants are entitled to payment of
compensation of Rs.70,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of
estate. Further, each appellant is entitled to payment of Rs.40,000/-
towards consortium.
7. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.18,42,800/- to
Rs.22,86,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till
the date of realization payable by respondents. On deposit of the
enhanced compensation, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the
entire amount in proportion to their shares awarded by the
2017 ACJ 2700
(2009)6 SCC 121
Tribunal, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand
closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 26.06.2025
ssp
