Telangana High Court
Smt V.Sabita, Hyderabad And 2 Others vs The Managing Director And Another on 28 March, 2025
1
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.581 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by 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 (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 the
deceased was proceeding on 11.05.2010 at about 6:30 p.m., in an
auto bearing No.AP-11-X-3757 from Abids towards Koti and when
he reached near Siddartha Hotel Abids, one APSRTC bus bearing
No.AP-28-Z-174 came in a rash and negligent manner at high
speed dashed against their auto from behind, due to which the
said auto got crushed between the buses bearing No.AP-10-Z-9970
and AP-28-Z-174. As a result, the auto driver received multiple
injuries all over the body, and immediately he was shifted to
Osmania General Hospital and that he succumbed to injuries while
undergoing treatment. Therefore, he filed a claim petition before
the Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-.
ETD,J
MACMA No.581_2021
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-RTC filed counter
affidavit denying all the material averments with regard to the age,
income of the deceased and the occurrence of accident. It is further
contended by them that the accident has not occurred due to the
rash and negligence of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-
174.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for trial:
1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of
the deceased,Vangooree Bala Muralidhar Rao @ V. Murali, due
to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (APSRTC
bus bearing registration No.AP-28-Z-3505) by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, and, if
so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the
respondents?
3) To what relief?
6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 and 2
and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents no
evidence was adduced.
7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.5,91,000/- as against the claim of
Rs.14,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have
preferred the present appeal.
ETD,J
MACMA No.581_2021
8. Heard the submission of Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellants and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for APSRTC.
9. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the
Tribunal has erred in awarding a low compensation of
Rs.5,91,000/- as against their claim of Rs.14,00,000/- and that
the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased to be very low,
while the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. The
Tribunal has awarded very less amounts under various heads and
has failed to consider the transportation expenses, future
prospects of the deceased. He therefore, prayed to enhance the
amount of compensation by allowing this appeal.
10. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand
submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the
Tribunal and therefore, prayed to uphold the same.
11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement
of compensation as prayed for?
2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need
any interference?
3. To what relief?
ETD,J
MACMA No.581_2021
12. POINT NO.1:
a) The claimants are aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. PW1 asserted that the
deceased was aged about '35' years and used to earn Rs.25,000/-
as an auto driver and that he also used to do petty business, but
no proof is filed in this regard. 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. Though the petitioner has asserted
that he is an auto driver, no evidence is placed on record. Hence,
the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as
Rs.4,500/- per month.
b) As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 2, 40% of the income needs
to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged '35'
years adding 40% towards future prospects would give to
Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500 + (Rs.4,500 x 40%) per month, which comes
to Rs.75,600/- per annum (Rs.6,300 x 12).
(2011) 12 SCC 236
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
ETD,J
MACMA No.581_2021
c) The number of claimants herein are three and therefore,
1/3rd deduction need to be made in his income towards personal
expenses and this would come up to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.75,600 -
(Rs.75,600 x 1/3))
d) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A4
reveals the age of the deceased as 35 years. Therefore, the age as
revealed under Ex.A4 is 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 3. The deceased being aged 35 years, the
appropriate multiplier to be applied is '16. Therefore, the loss of
dependency as calculated by the Tribunal holds good i.e. to the
extent of Rs.8,06,400/- (Rs.50,400 x 16).
e) In the light of Pranay Sethi's case, Rs.15000/- towards loss
of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and
further the said amounts have to be enhanced by 10% every three
years.
f) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 4, the Apex Court has elaborately
2009 (6) SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA No.581_2021
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 claimants would get Rs.48,000/- each
towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount
under this head would be Rs.1,44,000/-. 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.
g) 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 8,06,400/-
2. Loss of consortium 1,44,000
3. Loss of Estate 18,000/-
4. Loss of Funeral Expenses 18,000/-
Total 9,86,400/-
h) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are
entitled to is calculated as Rs.9,86,400/- while the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,91,000/- Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are
entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is
answered accordingly.
13. 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.5,91,000/- to Rs.9,86,400/-.
ETD,J
MACMA No.581_2021
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
14. 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.5,91,000/- to
Rs.9,86,400/- 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,
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:28 .03.2025
ds
ETD,J
MACMA No.581_2021
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.581 OF 2021
Date: 28.03.2025
ds
