1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
arrayed as they were before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are
accident that took place on 05.10.2011. It is stated by the
body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Gandhi
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Nacharam Police Station
IPC against the driver of crime Maruti Car.
5. It is stated by the petitioners that prior to accident, the
working as an AC operator. Due to his sudden demise, the
petitioners were put to mental agony and became destitute.
6. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 & 3 remained ex-
7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter
8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned
9. In order to substantiate their case, on behalf of the
petitioners PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were
marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was
adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy was marked.
MGP,J
10. After considering the entire oral and documentary
evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-
allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of
Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent
Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the
said compensation amount, the claim petitioners preferred the
present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.
11. Heard arguments submitted by Sri K.Jagathpal Reddy,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kota Subba Rao,
learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance
Company. Perused the record.
12. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellants as
stated in the grounds of Appeal are that though the petitioners
filed Ex.A6-Salary Certificate showing the income of the
deceased as Rs.8,000/-, but the learned Tribunal without
considering the same, fixed his monthly income @ Rs.5,000/-;
it also failed to consider awarding future prospects to the
income of the deceased and also awarded very meager amounts
under the head of non-pecuniary damages and therefore prayed
to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.
MGP,J
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal,
after considering all the aspects, had arrived at a reasonable
compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted.
14. Now the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the appellants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
POINT:-
15. Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident
and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at
by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there
is no necessity to once again decide the above said aspects. The
only point that has to be considered in the present Appeal is
with regard to quantum of compensation.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that though
the claim petitioners filed Ex.A6-Salary Certificate showing the
income of the deceased @ Rs.8,000/-, but the learned Tribunal
without considering the same, fixed his monthly income @
Rs.5,000/-.
17. A perusal of Ex.A6-Salary Certificate issued by Proprietor
of Sai Ram Engineering Works shows that the deceased-Kranthi
MGP,J
Kumar used to work as A.C.Operator and used to draw a sum of
Rs.8,000/- per month towards salary in addition to other
allowances. To prove the contents of Ex.A6-Salary certificate,
the petitioners got examined the author of the said Certificate
as PW3. PW3 in his evidence deposed that the deceased used to
work as an AC operator in their office till the date of accident
and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month towards his salary in
addition to daily allowance of Rs.100/- . He also stated that he
was hard working and was very regular in his service.
18. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW3 and Ex.A6-
Salary Certificate issued by him, this Court is inclined to fix the
income of the deceased @ Rs.8,000/- per month.
19. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the
learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the income
of the deceased. Hence, this Court, by considering the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Co.Ltd.Vs.Pranay Sethi 1 , hereby add 40% towards future
prospects to the income of the deceased by considering the age
of the deceased as 23 years as reflected in FIR, Charge sheet,
inquest report and PME report. Upon addition of the same, the
net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,200/-.
(2017 (6) 170 SC)
MGP,J
Since the number of dependants are 3, if 1/3rd is deducted
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, then his
net monthly income comes to Rs.7,467/- and the annual
income comes to Rs.89,604/-. After applying multiplier '18', the
total loss of dependency would come to Rs.16,12,872/-.
20. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium which
this Court finds it to be meager and hereby enhance the same to
Rs.77,000/- by relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Pranay
Sethi & others (2017 ACJ 2700). Thus, in all, the appellants
are entitled for a total compensation as indicated under:-
S.No. Name of the Head Amount Amount
awarded by awarded by
Tribunal this Court.
1 Monthly income Rs.5,000/- Rs.8,000/-
2 Addition of 40% - Rs.11,200/-
towards future
prospects
3 Annual income Rs.40,000/- Rs.89,604/-
arrived after
deduction of 1/3rd
towards personal
expenses.
4 Amount arrived Rs.6,80,000/- Rs.16,12,872/-
after application of
Multiplier
5 Conventional Rs.20,000/- Rs.77,000/-
MGP,J
Heads
6 TOTAL Rs.7,00,000/- 16,89,872/-
COMPENSATION
21. As far as interest is concerned, this Court, by relying
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and
others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2 enhances the rate of
interest awarded by the Tribunal from 7% to 7.5% per annum.
22. Since the compensation arrived is more than the claim
amount, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case between Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal
Singh and others 3 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
compensation can be granted more than the claim made based
on cogent and convincing evidence.
23. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the
settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
this Court deems fit and proper to allow the Appeal.
24. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.16,89,872/- which shall carry interest @
2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
AIR 2003 SC 674
MGP,J
7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization
payable by respondents Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The
respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation
within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. Upon such deposit, the appellants/claimants are
entitled to withdraw the same as per the apportionment made
by the learned Tribunal by paying deficit Court fee. There shall
be no order as to costs.
25. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Dt.19.03.2025
ysk
MGP,J
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1555 OF 2016
Dt.19.03.2025
ysk
