Korra Lachiram , Lachiram Nayak And ... vs Gugulothu Rajesh And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3343 Tel

Telangana High Court

Korra Lachiram , Lachiram Nayak And ... vs Gugulothu Rajesh And 2 Others on 24 March, 2025

                                 1




     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.88 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order

and decree dated 22.01.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.780 of 2015 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional

District Judge, Karimnagar (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

13.04.2013, at about 10:00 hours, the deceased was attending to

his work as helper on the harvester machine bearing No.AP-TA-

9224 and while he was cutting the paddy in the agricultural fields

of one K. Shanker, the respondent No.1 has driven the harvester

machine in a negligent manner, due to which the silencer of the

harvester machine touched the electric wire, as a result of which

the deceased got electrocuted and sustained severe burn injuries.

Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhongir and

after giving First Aid, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad for better treatment, but he succumbed to burn

injuries on 16.04.2013 at 7:45 hours, while undergoing treatment.

It is their case that the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per ETD,J MACMA No.88_2021

month as a helper on the harvester machine, they filed a claim

petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained

ex-parte.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance

Company filed counter affidavit denying the material averments of

the petition with regard to the age, income and avocation of the

deceased and they further denied the manner in which the

accident occurred. They further contended that respondent No.1

did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of accident

and their company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues for trial:

1) Whether the has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Harvester Machine bearing NBo.AP-15-TA-

9224 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent?

3) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined as PWs1 to

3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents

RWS 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

ETD,J MACMA No.88_2021

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.3,28,000/- as against the claim of

Rs.20,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have

preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard the submission of Sri Ram Chandar Rao Vemuganti,

learned counsel for the appellants and Sri T. Mahender Rao,

learned counsel for respondent No.3.

10. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the

Tribunal failed to take the earnings of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-

per month and has grossly erred by taking the earning as

Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income. Learned counsel has

further submitted that as per the guidelines laid by the Apex Court

40% of addition has to made to his income as future prospects. He

further argued that the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount

under various heads while assessing the compensation. He

therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand

submitted that there is no evidence placed before the Tribunal with

regard to the earnings of the deceased as claimed by the petitioners

and that in the absence of any proof, the Tribunal has rightly ETD,J MACMA No.88_2021

assessed the income of Rs.3,000/- per month and he therefore

prayed to confirm the order and decree of the Tribunal.

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 claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation granted by the Tribunal. It is the case of the

petitioners that the deceased used to work on a harvester machine

as a helper and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. To prove the

earnings of the deceased, they got examined PW3, and in his cross

examination, he has admitted that the deceased is his sister's son.

It is the contention of the respondents that PW3 is an eye witness

and that just to help the petitioners, he has entered the witness

box to depose about the earnings of the deceased and that there is

no proof that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- by working on

a harvester machine. But the fact is that the accident has occurred

while the harvester machine was under operation and the presence ETD,J MACMA No.88_2021

of the deceased on the harvester machine on the fateful day is not

in dispute. Therefore, it is held that the deceased was on the

harvester machine as on the date of accident. However, his income

cannot be taken to be Rs.15,000/- as contended by the petitioners.

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.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied upon the

decision of the Apex Court in Karamjit Kaur and Ors Vs. Royal

Sundram Alliance Insurance Company& Another 2, wherein the

Apex Court has observed that in respect of a casual labourer, a

sum of Rs.250/- per day cannot be considered as excessive or

exorbitant and thus taken the monthly income of the deceased who

worked as a casual labourer to be Rs.7,500/- per month. In the

said case, the accident occurred in the year 2014. Though the

petitioners have asserted that the deceased worked on a harvester,

no evidence is placed on record with regard to the salary paid to

him. Hence on a reasonable hypothesis the income of the deceased

is assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month.

(2011) 12 SCC 236

2023 Lawsuit (SC) 967 ETD,J MACMA No.88_2021

c) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 3, 40% of the income needs

to be added towards future prospects, as the deceased is aged '20'

years adding 40% towards future prospects i.e., Rs.8,400 (Rs.6,000

+ (Rs.6,000 x 40/100 = 2400/-) per month, which comes to

Rs.1,00,800/- per annum (Rs.8,400 x 12).

d) The deceased is a bachelor and therefore, 50% deduction

need to be made towards personal expenses and this would come

up to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.1,00,800 /50%).

e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A3

reveals the age of the deceased as 20 years. Therefore, the age as

revealed under Ex.A3is 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 4. The deceased being aged 20 years, the

appropriate multiplier to be applied is '18'. Therefore, the loss of

dependency is calculated as Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.50,400 x 18).

f) Further, in the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15,000/-

towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses

and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

2009 (6) SCC 121 ETD,J MACMA No.88_2021

and further the said amounts have to be enhanced by 10% every

three years.

g) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu

Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 5, 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,

in the present case, the claimant Nos.1 and 2 would get

Rs.48,000/- each towards loss of consortium, hence, the

compensation amount under this head would be Rs.96,000/-.

With regard to amounts to be granted under the heads of funeral

expenses Rs.18,000/- and loss of estate Rs.18,000/- would be just

and proper.

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 9,07,200/-

2. Loss of consortium 96,000

3. Loss of Estate 18,000

4. Loss of Funeral 18,000 Expenses Total 10,39,200/-

(2018) 18 SCC 130 ETD,J MACMA No.88_2021

i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are

entitled is calculated as Rs.10,39,200/- while the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.3,28,000/-. 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.3,28,000/- to Rs.

10,39,200/-.

15. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the MACMA filed by the appellants is partly

allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated 07.10.2013 in

M.V.O.P.No.1223 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at

Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,28,000/- to

Rs. 10,39,200/- 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.3 is 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, ETD,J MACMA No.88_2021

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: 24.03.2025 ds ETD,J MACMA No.88_2021

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

M.A.C.M.A.NO.88 OF 2021 Date: .03.2025.

ds