Telangana High Court
G. V. Premalatha vs K. Kalappa on 28 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1704 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri A. Keshava Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned standing
counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the
entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants
aggrieved by the award passed by the learned II Addl. District
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short 'the Tribunal'),
in M.V.O.P.No.823 of 2000, dated 12.12.2014.
3. The claim petition was filed by the appellants following death
of one G. Vidyasagar in a road traffic accident which took place on
the intervening night of 21/22.04.2000 at 00.30 hours near
Palmakul Village on NH-7. The deceased was travelling along with
the then MLA Indira Reddy and his gun men in Toyota car bearing
No.AP 9 AF 4446. When they were returning after attending a
function at Shadnagar, the car was hit by a lorry bearing No.TN
38Z 2377 which came in opposite direction. There was no contra
evidence with respect to the manner of accident and the same is
answered against the respondents by the Tribunal.
4. Upon examining the evidence adduced by the appellants, the
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,72,400/- in addition to
Rs.5,70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum as against the claim
of Rs.24,00,000/-.
5. The peculiar circumstances of this case are such that
compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- with interest at 9% per annum was
awarded at the first instance. The said award was challenged before
this Court by both the Insurance Company and the appellants
herein. This Court has set aside the award, directed the Tribunal
to restore the claim petition and dispose of afresh. Following the
said direction, the Tribunal re-assessed the evidence and awarded
Rs.1,72,400/- in addition to the already awarded amount of
Rs.5,70,000/-. Currently, the appellants/claimants have
challenged the award on the premise that the deceased was doing
Dairy Farm business, was working as a translator to foreign visitors
and was delivering speeches and therefore, he had income of
Rs.25,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal had taken the age of
the deceased as 46 years. While so, as per record, his age is only
40 years.
6. During arguments in appeal, the learned counsel for the
appellants emphasized that the deceased was aged 42 years and
the multiplier that has to be applied is '13', whereas, the Tribunal
has taken a wrong multiplier of '12'. Further, it is argued that no
compensation was granted under conventional head apart from not
considering the income of the deceased on the basis of language
translation.
7. Learned standing counsel for respondent/Insurance
Company would submit that the compensation may be awarded on
the basis of the guidelines laid down in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1.
8. Before remanding of the matter to the Tribunal, the income of
the deceased was considered at Rs.5,400/- per month and his
contribution to the family after deducting 1/3rd of the income was
fixed at Rs.3,600/-. During re-consideration by the Tribunal, the
contribution of the deceased to the appellants was fixed at
Rs.5,100/- per month (Rs.3,600/- + 1,500/-) by considering that
the deceased was getting income through dairy farm also. Apart
from the income from dairy farm, the appellants are claiming
income of the deceased from his work as a translator. In that
regard, Ex.A8/bunch of letters of correspondence are produced to
show that the deceased was rendering services to Christian
(2017) 16 SCC 680
institutions in preaching gospel. The correspondence itself cannot
be taken into consideration as the author of said correspondence
was not examined before the Tribunal. However, the appellants
have filed certain documents in the form of receipts from bank
showing income in dollars and its conversion into rupees. The said
income is not steady and the same was received at some intervals.
Therefore, an average of Rs.1,000/- per month extra is taken
towards the contribution of the deceased to the appellants, as a
translator. Thus, the total contribution to the appellants would be
Rs.6,100/- per month.
9. Except for the Post mortem examination report/Ex.A3, there
is no document before this Court to ascertain the age of the
deceased. As per Post mortem examination report, the age of the
deceased is shown to be 46 years. The multiplier of '12' has wrongly
been applied by the Tribunal and hence a multiplier of '13' is
applied keeping in view the age of the deceased.
10. Taking into account the contribution of the deceased to the
appellants at Rs.6,100/- per month, as per judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (1 supra), if future
prospects at 25% i.e., Rs.1,525/- is added, the annual contribution
of the deceased to the appellants comes to Rs.91,500/- (Rs.6,100/-
+ Rs.1,525/- X 12). If the said amount is multiplied by the
appropriate multiplier '13' relying on Smt. Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation 2, the total compensation under the head of
'loss of dependency' would be Rs.11,89,500/- instead of
Rs.7,34,400/- which was awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the
learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards
funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and
Rs.3,000/- towards loss of estate. However, in view of Pranay
Sethi's case (1 supra), the said finding is set aside. This Court is
of the considered opinion that appellants are entitled to
Rs.33,000/- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate
(Rs.30,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). In addition thereof,
claimants are entitled Rs.44,000/- each towards consortium.
11. In so far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 3,
inclined to decrease the rate of interest awarded by the learned
Tribunal to 7.5% per annum on entire compensation amount from the
date of petition till the date of realization.
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the
appellants/claimants are entitled to the following amounts under
different heads:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of dependency Rs.11,89,500
(2) Funeral expenses and Rs.33,000
Loss of Estate
(3) Loss of spousal consortium Rs.44,000 for appellant No.1
(4) Loss of parental consortium Rs.2,20,000 for appellant
(5) Loss of filial consortium Rs.1,32,000 for appellant
Total compensation awarded Rs.16,18,500/-
13. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.7,42,400/- to Rs.16,18,500/- as hereunder:
a) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
b) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the amount
within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of judgment. On such deposit, the appellants/
claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount in
proportion to their shares awarded by the
Tribunal, without furnishing the security.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 28.03.2025
gvl
