Telangana High Court
Smt. K. Laxmi And 3 Others vs T. Koteshwara Rao And 1 Other on 7 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1631 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri T. Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and Sri P. Harinath Gupta, learned standing
counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the
entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants
aggrieved by the award dated 28.04.2015 passed by the learned XI
Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short 'the
Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.1336 of 2012.
3. The claim petition was filed by the appellants seeking
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of one K. Raja
Gopal in a road traffic accident which occurred on 18.01.2012 at
1.30am near outskirts of Madhavarm Village, NH-65, Munagala
Mandal, Nalgonda District.
4. Upon examining the evidence adduced by the appellants, the
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,62,100/- with interest at
7.5% per annum.
5. The appellants case is that the deceased was aged 39 years
and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Ex.A8 is the Salary
certificate issued by Hyderabad Media House Ltd. As per the oral
evidence of PW4, Senior HR Executive in Hyderabad Media House
Ltd., Ex.A8 Salary certificate is issued by Hyderabad Media House
Ltd. Ex.A9 is the true copy of salary sheet and Ex.A10 is the true
copy of attendance sheet. As per Ex.A8, the deceased was earning
gross salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. On the premise that there
was no authorization issued to PW4, ExsA8 salary certificate, Ex.A9
true copy of salary sheet and Ex.A9 true copy of attendance sheet
were not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. When there is
credible evidence in the form of oral evidence by PW4, Senior HR
Executive in Hyderabad Media House Ltd., there is no ground to
discard the said evidence. Further, the said Senior HR Executive
has produced credible documentary evidence in the form of salary
certificate, salary sheet and attendance sheet. When HR Executive
of a prestigious institution adduces both oral and documentary
evidence, the said evidence can be taken into consideration in spite
of non-production of authorization letter as the MACT Act is a
welfare legislation meant for providing relief to victims of road
traffic accident.
6. On the basis of evidence of PW4, the income of the deceased
is taken at Rs.10,000/- per month.
7. As per PME report/Ex.A5, the age of the deceased is shown
as 45 years. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1, if
future prospects at 25% i.e., Rs.2,500/- is added to the monthly
income, the net monthly income comes to Rs.12,500/-
(Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,500/-). From the net annual income of
Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.12,500x12), if 1/4th is deducted towards
personal expenses, the annual contribution of the deceased to the
appellants would be Rs.1,12,500/-. If the said amount is multiplied
by the appropriate multiplier '14' as was rightly taken by the
Tribunal relying on Smt. SarlaVarma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 2, the total compensation under the head of 'loss of
dependency' would be Rs.15,75,000/-.
8. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- each towards
consortium, loss of care and guidance for minor children and loss
of estate of the deceased. Further, Rs.25,000/- was awarded
towards funeral expenses. However, in view of Pranay Sethi's case
(1 supra), the said finding is set aside and the appellants are
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
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, Rs.44,000/- to appellant No.2 towards
parental consortium and Rs.44,000/- each to appellant Nos.3and 4
towards filial 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.15,75,000
(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.44,000 for appellant No.2
(5) Loss of filial consortium Rs.88,000 for appellant
Total compensation awarded Rs.17,84,000/-
9. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.10,62,100/- to Rs.17,84,000/- 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
