Telangana High Court
Sayara Banu vs Apsrtc on 7 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2798 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and Sri R. Anurag, learned standing counsel
for respondent No.2/RTC. Perused the entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants
aggrieved by the award dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short 'the Tribunal') in
M.V.O.P.No.92of 2015.
3. The claim petition arose seeking compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- following death of one Md. Amjed Hussain in a road
traffic accident which took place on 08.10.2014 at 9pm at Ranga
Mahal cross roads when RTC bus bearing No.AP 21 Z 0029 dashed
the deceased who was proceeding on a bicycle in front of the bus.
4. Upon examining the evidence adduced by the appellants and
the respondents, the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.5,70,050/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.
5. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of
compensation to Rs.13,86,250/- by placing reliance upon
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. PranaySethi and others 1, A.I.Muthaiah
vs. Rathod Redya 2 and Sayed Sadiq vs. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. 3
6. A perusal of record shows that the Tribunal has taken the
notional income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month as there
was no evidence to support the claim of the appellants about the
income of the deceased being Rs.9,000/- per month as a Salesman.
As per the Inquest report marked under Ex.A2, the deceased is
shown to be a labourer aged 50 years. As per the oral evidence of
PW1 who is wife of the deceased, the deceased was purchasing old
plastic items and used to sell the same to the manufacturer. The
deceased was travelling on a cycle to purchase the old plastic items
and to sell the same. In this regard, the learned counsel for the
appellants referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in Maheshwari and others vs. Ramachandran and
others 4, wherein the notional income of a fruit vendor is taken at
Rs.15,000/- per month. In this regard, it has to be noted that the
2017 ACJ 2700 (LB)
2015 (4) ALD 585 LB
2014 SCC 735
2022 LawSuit (SC) 1506
deceased in the present case who was purchasing scrap plastic
items is compared to the deceased in Maheshwari case (4 supra),
who was selling beverages and was running vegetable shop. Both
professions are not comparable, however, notional income of the
deceased cannot be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month which is that of
an unskilled labourer. The deceased herein was engaged in work
which required him to do purchase of scrap plastic items as well as
its marketing. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased is
taken at Rs.8,000/- per month.
7. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 53 years
and computed the loss of dependency. However, as per Inquest
report/Ex.A2, the age of deceased is shown as 50 years. As per
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (1
supra), if future prospects at 25% i.e., Rs.2,000/- is added to the
monthly income, the net monthly income comes to Rs.10,000/-
(Rs.8,000/- + Rs.2,000/-). From the net annual income of
Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.10,000x12), if 1/4this deducted towards personal
expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the appellants
would be Rs.90,000/-. If the said amount is multiplied by the
appropriate multiplier '13' relying on Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation 5, the total compensation under the head of
'loss of dependency' would be Rs.11,70,000/-.
8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of love and
affection, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/-
towards transportation and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses.
However, in view of Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra), the said finding
is set aside and the appellants are granted Rs.33,000/- towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate. Further, granted Rs.44,000/-
to appellant No.1 towards loss of spousal consortium and
Rs.44,000/- each to appellant Nos.2 to 5 towards parental
consortium.
9. In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the appellants
are entitled to the following amounts under different heads:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.11,70,000
(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.1,76,000 for appellant
Total compensation awarded Rs.14,23,000/-
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
10. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.5,70,050/- to Rs.14,23,000/- as hereunder:
a) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
b) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the amount
within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of judgment. On such deposit, the appellants 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: 07.03.2025
gvl
