Telangana High Court
Zareena Begum And Another vs Ramavath Mangtha And 2 Others on 13 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.461 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants being unsatisfied
with the award and decree dated 27.09.2019 passed in
M.V.O.P.No.826 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) Rangareddy
District at L.B.Nagar.
2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred
to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The M.V.O.P.No.826 of 2016 was filed by appellants
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only)
for the death of one Mohammed Yaseen in a motor vehicle
accident occurred on 04.08.2016, while he was returning
back to home on his TVS XL bearing No.AP-10-R-4945 from
Chengicherla and on the way when he reached near
Sampoorna Hotel at Medipally, the driver of Tipper bearing
No.AP-24-TB-8636 came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed him from behind. Due to which, he sustained
bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The police have
registered a case in Crime No.485 of 2016 for the offence
under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the tipper.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners
contended that as on the date of accident, the age of the
deceased was 35 years and he was working as labour in
Ammar Leathers, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and he
was earning Rs.14,500/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand five
hundred only) per month. Since the family lost their
dependency, the appellants have filed the M.V.O.P claiming
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against respondents.
5. Before the tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained
ex parte and whereas, respondent No.2 filed counter
contending that the driver of the crime vehicle was not
holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the
alleged accident. The respondent No.2 denied the age, income
of the deceased and the involvement of the crime vehicle. It is
also stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is
excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners,
PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked.
On behalf of the respondent No.2, no witness was examined,
but Ex.B1 is marked.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
(i) Whether the accident occurred on 04.08.2016
due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tipper
bearing No.AP-24-TB-8636?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what quantum and from
which of the respondents?
(iii) To what relief?
8. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the
learned tribunal allowed the claim petition awarding a total
compensation of Rs.8,76,400/- with future interest @ 9% per
annum to be paid by the respondents, jointly and severally.
Challenging the same, the appellants have filed the present
appeal.
9. Heard Sri Nageswara Rao Repakula, learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for Insurance Company appearing for
respondent No.2 and perused the material available on
record.
10. The main grievance of the appellants is that the learned
tribunal ought to have taken into consideration Ex.A7 as the
appellants have proved the Ex.A7 by producing the evidence
of PW.3. The Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the learned tribunal did not appreciate the evidence of
PW.3 and did not consider Ex.A7 on the ground that PW.3
did not produce any bank Statement to show the salary
amount which was actually paid to the deceased and there
was no license being produced to show that PW3 was running
the business. Having disbelieved the same, the learned
tribunal has assessed the compensation by taking income of
the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month by adding the future
prospects as the age of the deceased being 35 years and
taking future prospects at 40% and deducted 1/3rd of the
amount towards personal expenses of the deceased. Further,
as per the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 1, it was held that multiplier in respect of the age
group of 31- 35 years being 16, the same was taken into
consideration. Learned counsel for the appellants further
contended that the appellants are also entitled for
compensation under the conventional heads i.e., towards
(2009) 6 SCC 121
funeral expenses, spousal consortium and parental
consortium.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents argued that the Tribunal after considering all
these aspects has rightly awarded just and reasonable
compensation, for which interference of this Court is not
necessary. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. Considering the rival contentions of both the parties as
it is seen that the said accident occurred on 04.08.2016 and
there is no dispute regarding the deceased being working as
laborer in the said firm of PW.3 and considering the ground
of realities that a laborer working in the city obviously would
get more than Rs.4,500/- and any laborer would get Rs.250/-
per day.
13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of the case and the present cost of living and ground realities,
this Court is of the opinion that the income of the deceased
can be taken as Rs.7,500/- per month (Rs.250 x 30) as
against the income which is considered by the learned
tribunal.
14. As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others 2, 40% of the
income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the
deceased is aged about 35 years, adding 40% towards future
prospects would make income of deceased at Rs.10,500/-
per month (Rs.7,500 x 40%), which comes to Rs.10,500/- x
12 = Rs.1,26,000/- per annum.
15. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
dictum of Sarla Verma (Supra 1) if the deceased was
married, 1/3rd of his income has to be deducted as there are
2 dependents i.e., 42,000/- towards his personal expenses.
Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting
personal expenses would come to Rs.84,000/- per annum
(Rs.1,26,000 - (1,26,000 x 1/3) = Rs.84,000/-) This sum if
multiplied with the multiplier (16) applicable to the age of the
deceased, who is aged 35 years, it would come to
Rs.13,44,000/- (Rs.84,000 X 16 = Rs.13,44,000/-). Thus,
appellants are entitled to Rs.13,44,000/- under the head
'Loss of Dependency'.
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
16. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for the
compensation in the following terms:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,44,000/-
2. Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- *After increasing
10% for every
3. Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- three years as
per the judgment
4. Parental Consortium Rs.48,400/- of the Apex
Court in Pranay
5. Spousal Consortium Rs.48,400/- Sethi (Supra 2)
TOTAL Rs.14,77,100/-
17. Taking the entire material placed on record and the
rival contentions of both the counsels, this Court of the
opinion that the appellants would be entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.14,77,100/- as against the compensation
granted by the learned tribunal i.e, Rs.8,76,400/-
18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount from Rs.8,76,400/- to
Rs.14,77,100/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs Seventy seven
thousand one hundred rupees only) with interest at the rate
of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till date
of realization. Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation and respondent
No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire
amount within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such Deposit,
the appellants are permitted to withdraw the said
amount along with interest accrued on it. Appellant
No.1 shall withdraw her share and as the appellant
No.2 is minor, the share amount of appellant No.2 shall
be kept in FDR till she attains majority. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
DATE: 13.03.2025
dgr
