Telangana High Court
Oruganti Laxmamma And 2 Others vs Shaik Noor Basha And 2 Others on 13 March, 2025
1
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.177 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the Order
and Decree dated 16.08.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.368 of 2017 passed by
the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District
Judge, Nalgonda (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 claim petitioners before the Tribunal is that
the petitioners are the wife and sons of Oruganti Sathaiah aged 48
years and that the deceased was the owner and driver of auto
rickshaw bearing No.Ap-24-V-402, which was plied for hire. It is
their case that the deceased was proceeding on the National High
Way No.65 with passengers from Chityal to Narketpally on
08.03.2017 at 5:50 p.m., when they reached Vivera Hotel, on the
outskirts of Narketpally Village, a Bolero bearing No.AP-27-Y-7007
coming from Hyderabad and proceeding towards Vijayawada driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, hit the
auto rickshaw of the deceased from behind. As a result of which
the auto rolled over and the deceased and other passengers in the
auto rickshaw sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was
ETD,J
MACMA No.177_2021
shifted to Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Narketpally,
where he succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 7:40
p.m. That the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of Bolero and that the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation.
4. The owner and driver of the jeep who were the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal remained ex-parte.
5. Respondent No.3 filed its counter denying the averments of
the petition and they further contended that the deceased was
carrying 10 passengers in the auto rickshaw which is meant for
only 3 passengers and that the accident occurred only due to the
negligence of the deceased and that there is no negligence of the
driver of the jeep. It is further contended by the respondent No.3
that the driver of the Bolero did not possess a valid driving license
as on the date of the accident and that the said vehicle is not
insured with it and has also denied the age, income and
occurrence of the accident.
6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal
has framed the following issues for trial:
i) Whether the deceased died in a road accident due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero Vehicle
bearing No.AP-27-Y-7007 on 08.03.2017 at about 5:00 p.m.,
at Oppositye to Vivero Hotel, outskirts of Narketpally Village
and Mandal on NH.No.65, Nalgonda District?
ETD,J
MACMA No.177_2021
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so,
from whom?
iii) To what result?
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and
2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. 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 a
compensation of Rs.5,38,000/- towards compensation as against
the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
have preferred the present appeal.
9. Heard the submission of Ms. Annapurna Sreeram, learned
counsel for the appellants and Ms. P. Bhavana Rao, learned
counsel for respondent No.3.
10. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the
Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and
awarded a very meager compensation and that the Tribunal failed
to consider that the deceased was plying an auto rickshaw and
used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month, and the Tribunal ought to
have awarded Rs.50,000/- towards consortium instead of
Rs.40,000/- and that it has awarded very less amount towards
loss of estate and Funeral Expenses and also that the Tribunal
ETD,J
MACMA No.177_2021
failed to follow the principles laid down by the Apex Court in
granting just compensation.
11. Learned counsel for respondents has submitted that the trial
Court has given a well reasoned order and that the petitioners are
not entitled to any enhancement and 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 claim petitioners in this appeal are aggrieved with regard
to the quantum of compensation. It is their case that the deceased
used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month as a driver of the auto
rickshaw. However, no proof is filed in this regard. In the absence
of any proof, some amount of guess work is required in assessing
the income of the deceased.
ETD,J
MACMA No.177_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 was an auto driver as per the
contention of the claim petitioners. Ex.A6 is the driving license of
the deceased and he was driving the auto rickshaw at the time of
accident. Thus it is elicited that the deceased was an auto driver.
Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, the monthly income of the
deceased is assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month and the same
amount is taken by the Tribunal also.
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. As the deceased is aged 48
years, adding 25% towards future prospects would give Rs.7,500/-
(Rs.6,000/-x 25/100 = 1500/-) per month, which comes to
Rs.7500/- x 12 = Rs.90,000/- per annum.
d) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore,
1/3rd deduction need to be made to her income towards personal
(2011) 12 SCC 236
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
ETD,J
MACMA No.177_2021
expenses and this would come up to Rs.60,000/- (Rs.90,000/- (-)
Rs.30,000/-).
e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A3
reveals the age of the deceased as 48 years. Therefore, the age as
revealed under Ex.A3 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 48 years, the
appropriate multiplier to be applied is '13'. Thus, the loss of
dependency comes up to an extent of Rs.7,20,000/-.
f) With regard to the amount to be awarded under the head
'loss of consortium' in Pranay Sethi's case cited supra,
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.
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,
2009 (6) SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA No.177_2021
in the present case, the claimants would get Rs.40,000/- each
towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount
under this head would be Rs.1,20,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-,
since there are three claimants. Further, the compensation
amounts for Loss of Estate i.e., Rs.15,000/- and an amount of
Rs.15,000/- for Funeral Expenses needs to be awarded.
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 7,20,000/-
2. Loss of consortium 1,20,000/-
3. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
4. Loss of Funeral 15,000/-
Expenses
Total 8,70,000/-
i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are
entitled is calculated as Rs.8,70,000/- while the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,38,000/-. Thus, 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
ETD,J
MACMA No.177_2021
enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,38,000/- to
Rs.8,70,000/-.
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 16.08.2019 in
M.V.O.P.No.368 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl.District Judge, Nalgonda, enhancing the
compensation from Rs.5,38,000/- to Rs.8,70,000/- 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
No.1 to 3 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: 13.03.2025
ds
