Telangana High Court
Parveen Banu, And 7 Others vs Pallikonda Srinivas, And 2 Others on 13 March, 2025
1
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.68 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the Order
and Decree dated 03.06.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.41 of 2018 passed by
the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal (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 petitioners before the Tribunal is that on
21.02.2017 at about 12:00 hours, the deceased/Shaik Ishaq was
returning home situated at Gajulpet of Nirmal Town on his cycle
after paying current bill at Electricity Office, and on the way, while
proceeding in front of ADCC Bank, one Van bearing No.AP-01-Y-
4894 coming from Nirmal bus station being driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the cycle of the
deceased from behind, as a result of which the deceased fell down
on the road and the tyres of the bus ran over the body of the
deceased, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and
was shifted to Government Area Hospital for treatment, but he
succumbed to injuries on the same day at 1:30 p.m. It is their case
that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and
ETD,J
MACMA No.68_2021
was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month
as an Electrician.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the
Van, filed counter denying the petition averments and they further
contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligence of the deceased as he was riding his cycle in a zig zag
manner and suddenly turned towards the van and that there was
no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the van bearing
No.AP-01-Y-4894. It is their further case that even if they are held
liable to pay any compensation, it is the respondent No.3 who has
to pay the same as they have a valid insurance policy.
5. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the manner of accident, the age and earnings of the
deceased, they further contended that the accident occurred due to
the negligence of the deceased and denied negligence on part of the
driver of the van and that their company is not liable to pay any
compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has
framed the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Eicher Van bearing No.Ap-01-Y-4894?
2) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation, if so, at what
quantum and against whom?
ETD,J
MACMA No.68_2021
3) To what relief?
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and
2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. The respondents have not
adduced any evidence.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded
an amount of Rs.5,92,720/- towards compensation as against the
claim of Rs.12,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said Order and Decree,
the present appeal is filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement
of compensation.
9. Heard the submission of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri A. Ramakrishna
Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
10. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the
Tribunal has not assessed the earnings of the deceased in a proper
manner and has awarded a very meager compensation. He further
argued that the Tribunal failed to award Filial Consortium to
petitioner Nos.7 and 8 and Parental Consortium to petitioner Nos.2
to 6 and that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the
deceased as '52' years, though they have stated the age of the
deceased as '45' years. He further contended that the rate of
ETD,J
MACMA No.68_2021
interest awarded by the Tribunal i.e., 7.5% per annum is very
meager.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
Tribunal has granted just compensation and that there is no proof
of earnings filed by the petitioners and in the absence of proof, the
Tribunal has rightly assessed the income as Rs.4,500/- per month
and also has rightly
taken the age of the deceased as '52' years. He therefore, prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation? If so, to what extent?
2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any
interference?
3. To what relief?
13. POINT NO.1:
a) The grievance of the claim petitioners in this appeal is with
regard to the quantum of compensation. The petitioners asserted
that the deceased was aged '45' years and was earning Rs.15,000/-
per month by working as an Electrician. However, no proof is filed
in this regard.
ETD,J
MACMA No.68_2021
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 as the income.
But in the present case, the deceased is stated to have been
working as an Electrician. A perusal of Ex.A3/inquest report,
reflects that the deceased used to work as an Electrician. It is the
common knowledge that in small towns, people get engaged in
such works as Electrician, Plumber etc., Since it is asserted by the
petitioners and the occupation of the deceased as disclosed by
Ex.A3 is revealed as Electrician, the occupation of the deceased is
taken as Electrician. In the Ramachandrappa case cited (supra)
the accident occurred in 2004 and the income of the deceased as a
labourer was assessed by the Apex Court as Rs.4,500/- per month.
In the present case, the accident occurred in 2017 and the
deceased is stated to be working as Electrician. Therefore, on a
reasonable hypothesis his income is assessed as Rs.6,000/- per
month.
c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, 10% of the income needs to
(2011) 12 SCC 236
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
ETD,J
MACMA No.68_2021
be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 52
years, adding 10% towards future prospects would give Rs.6,600/-
(Rs.6,000/-x 10/100 = 600/-) per month, which comes to
Rs.6,600/- x 12 = Rs.79,200/- per annum.
d) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore,
1/5th deduction need to be made to his income towards personal
expenses and this would come up to Rs.63,360/- (Rs.79,200/- (-)
Rs.15,840/-).
e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A4
reveals the age of the deceased as 52 years. Therefore, the age as
revealed under Ex.A4 is taken into consideration. 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 52 years, the
appropriate multiplier to be applied is '11'. Therefore, the loss of
dependency is calculated as Rs.6,96,960/- (63,360 x 11).
f) With regard to the amount to be awarded under the head
'loss of consortium', in the light of Pranay Sethi's case cited
(supra1), Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
2009 (6) SCC 121
ETD,J
MACMA No.68_2021
towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium have to be awarded.
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 cited
(supra 2) 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, there are eight
claimants and they would get Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of
consortium, hence, the compensation amount under this head
would be Rs.3,20,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-. Further, in view of
the guidelines laid down by the Pranay Sethi's case cited (supra3),
the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards Loss
of Estate and Rs.15,000/- towards Funeral Expenses.
h) Therefore, in all the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation amounts:-
SI.No. Name of the Heads Awarded by this Court
Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 6,96,960/-
2. Loss of consortium 3,20,000/-
3. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
4. Loss of Funeral 15,000/-
Expenses
Total 10,46,960/-
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA No.68_2021
i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are
entitled is calculated as Rs.10,46,960/- while the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,92,720/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners
are 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.5,92,720/- to Rs.10,46,960/-
Hence, Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
15. POINT NO.3:
In the result, the MACMA filed by the appellants is partly
allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 03.06.2019 in
M.V.O.P.No.41 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Nirmal, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 5,92,720/- to
Rs.10,46,960/- 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. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the
compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two
ETD,J
MACMA No.68_2021
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: 13.03.2025
ds
