Telangana High Court
Smt. P. Manemma And 3 Others vs Makbul Husen Mirajabhai Momin And ... on 26 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3283 OF 2009
J U D G M E N T:
Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded in the Award and Decree dated
31.03.2009 (impugned Order) passed in Original
Petition No.1624 of 2007 by the learned V Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) - cum -
XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at
Hyderabad (for short "the learned Tribunal"),
appellants-petitioners preferred the present Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation amount.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the
parties will be referred to as per their array before the
learned Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
a) Petitioners Nos.1 to 4 filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the learned
Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for
the death of one Sri Sekhar Reddy (hereinafter referred
to as 'the deceased'), who died in a Motor Vehicle
Accident that occurred on 30.07.2007. Petitioner No.1
is the wife, petitioner No.2 is son and petitioner Nos.3
and 4 are parents of the deceased.
b) According to petitioners, on 30.07.2007 at 05:30
PM., while the deceased and one Gopal Reddy were
going on a scooter from ODF towards Sankarpally
Village, near MNR Plots, a lorry bearing No.GJ 1 AU
3781 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner
by its driver, dashed the scooter of the deceased from
behind. Due to said accident, the deceased travelling
as a pillion rider sustained fatal injuries and died on
the spot.
c) The Police, Shankarpally registered a criminal
case against the driver of said lorry for the offence
under Sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal
Code.
d) As per petitioners, the deceased was hale and
healthy, aged about 38 years at the time of accident
and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing
centering works and he used to contribute the same for
the maintenance of his family.
4. In reply to the petition averments before the
learned Tribunal, the Respondent No.1-owner remained
exparte before the learned Tribunal and whereas, the
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter
denying the negligence on the part of the driver of the
crime vehicle and the manner of occurrence of the
accident. It was further contended that the deceased
was also not holding any driving license and the
Insurance Company has no liability to pay
compensation. Further the Respondent No.2-Insurance
Company denied the age, avocation and income of the
deceased; the compensation claimed is out of
proportions, excessive and exorbitant and prayed to
dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following
issues were settled:
i. Whether the accident resulting in death of P.
Sekhar Reddy occurred owing to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of lorry
bearing No.GJ 1 UV 3781?
ii. Whether the vehicle involved in the accident
was insured with the 2nd respondent or not?
iii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation and if so, to what amount and
from whom?
iv. To what relief?
6. Before the learned Tribunal, petitioners got
examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On
behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was
adduced but the copy of insurance policy was marked
as Ex.B1.
7. Considering the claim of petitioners and counter
affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and on evaluation of
oral and documentary evidence available on record, the
Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the petitioners,
awarding compensation of Rs.4,14,000/- along with
interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of petition till
the date of deposit, to be deposited by respondent Nos.1
and 2 jointly and severally.
8. Challenging the quantum of compensation,
appellants-petitioners have filed this Motor Accident
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation amount.
9. Heard Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for
appellants-petitioners, Sri R. Venkat Rao, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri N.J.Sunil Kumar,
learned standing counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company. Perused the material available on
record.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for
appellants-petitioners is that though appellants proved
their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence
apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A1
to A9, the learned Tribunal without considering the
same, erroneously awarded meager amount towards
compensation by taking monthly income of the
deceased at the rate of Rs.4,000/- only instead of
Rs.8,000/- per month and sought for enhancement of
compensation amount.
11. On the other hand, both the learned counsel for
respondent No.1-owner as well as respondent No.2-
Insurance company have contended that the learned
Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and
the same needs no interference by this Court.
12. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether appellants-petitioners are entitled
for enhancement of compensation amount in
addition to the compensation amount granted vide
impugned Award and Decree dated 31.03.2009 by
the learned Tribunal?
13. P O I N T:- This Court has perused the entire
evidence and documents available on record.
14. PW1 who is the wife of the deceased reiterated the
contents of the claim application and as she is not an
eyewitness to the accident, she got examined PW3-
eyewitness to the accident who deposed that while
himself and deceased were travelling on a scooter, a
lorry bearing No.GJ 1AU 3781 driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter of the
deceased from behind and as a result, the deceased
died on the spot.
15. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also
relied upon documentary evidence marked under
Exs.A1 to A9. Ex.A1-FIR discloses that a criminal case
was registered by Police and took up investigation and
during the course of investigation, inquest, postmortem
examination were conducted and those reports were
marked as Exs.A2 and A3 respectively and the Police
also collected Ex.A5-Motor Vehicle Inspector Report and
after completion of investigation, Ex.A4-Charge sheet
was filed against driver of crime vehicle stating that the
accident took place due to his rash and negligent
driving. The copy of insurance policy was marked as
Ex.B1 and that it is valid and in force as on the date of
accident.
16. As regards the manner of accident is concerned,
the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW3-
eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the
documentary evidence available on record, held that the
accident occurred due to negligence on the part of
driver of lorry. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which
are based on appreciation of evidence in proper
perspective.
17. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is
with regard to the quantum of compensation. The
petitioners have got examined PW2, who is the
President of Sri Venkateswara Centering Workers
Association. He deposed that the deceased was a
centering contractor used to earn monthly income of
Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Through him Ex.A7-ID card
of the deceased and Ex.A8-Original certificate issued by
Sri Venkateswara Centering Workers Association were
marked. Since there is no income proof filed by the
petitioners, the Tribunal considered Rs.4,000/- as
monthly income and this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the said finding.
18. Now coming to the age of the deceased, the
learned Tribunal by relying on Ex.A3-Post Mortem
Examination Report of the deceased considered his age
as 45 years. However, the learned Tribunal has not considered
the future prospects while computing the loss of earnings. As
the deceased was aged 45 years and self employed at the time of
accident, he is entitled for addition of 25% towards future
prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd.
v.Pranay Sethi 1. Hence, the future monthly income of the
deceased comes to Rs.5,000/- (Rs.4000/- + Rs.1000/-) This
Court, by considering the number of dependants as four in
number, is inclined to deduct 1/4th amount towards personal
and living expenses of the deceased. Hence, the net monthly
income that was being contributed to the family of the deceased
comes to Rs.3,750/- (Rs.5,000/- - Rs.1,250/-) per month. As
the age of the deceased was 45 years at the time of the accident,
2017(6) 170 SC
the appropriate multiplier is '14' as per the decision reported in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2. Therefore,
adopting multiplier '14', the total loss of dependency works out
to Rs.6,30,000/- (Rs.3,750/- x 12 x 14).
19. As seen from the Award of the learned Tribunal, an
amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium
to petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 to 4
under the head of loss of love and affection, however, in view of
Pranay Sethi's case, the said finding is set aside. This Court is
of the considered opinion that petitioners are entitled to
Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10%
enhancement thereon). In addition thereof, petitioner No.2 who
is minor son of the deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- under
the head of 'parental consortium' as per the decision of the Apex
Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3. Thus, in all,
petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.7,47,000/-
(Rs.6,30,000/- + Rs.77,000/- + Rs.40,000/-).
20. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7% per anum.
However, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130
Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 4 this Court is
inclined to increase the rate of interest awarded by the learned
Tribunal from 7% to 7.5% per annum on entire compensation
amount from the date of petition till the date of realization.
21. As on today, the petitioner No.2, who was minor by the
date of filing of the petition, would have attained the age of
majority. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner
need not be deposited in any nationalized bank. Since, the
petitioner Nos.3 and 4 have attained the age of senior citizens,
the condition imposed by the learned Tribunal to deposit the
compensation amount in any nationalized bank for a period of
three years is unwarranted.
22. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded
by the Tribunal from Rs.4,14,048/- to Rs.7,47,000/-, which
shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum on
entire compensation amount from the date of petition till the
date of realization. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 being owner and
insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to
deposit the compensation amount within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellants shall
4 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation. The
petitioner No.1 being wife of the deceased is awarded an amount
of Rs.4,50,000/- and petitioner No.2 is awarded an amount of
Rs.1,37,000/-. The petitioner Nos.3 and 4 being the parents of
the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- each. On
such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the entire
compensation amount awarded to them respectively without
furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Date: 26-03-2025
mmr
