Telangana High Court
Banoth Gayathri And 4 Others vs Saisuru Shyam Goud And 2 Others on 2 May, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.529 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order
and Decree dated 21.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2015 passed by
the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (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 claimants before the Tribunal was that on
11.01.2015 at about 22:20 hours when the deceased-B.Prem Singh
was proceeding on his Scooter bearing No.AP-29-BR-2443 from
Shantinagar to his residence at Boduppal, the crime vehicle-Tata
Mini Tipper bearing No.AP-35-U-0176 driven in a rash and
negligent manner at a high speed, hit the deceased, as a result of
which he sustained grievous injuries and died. It is their case that
the deceased was aged about 43 years, working in GHMC, earning
monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, they sought a compensation
of Rs.20,00,000/-.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
ETD,J
MACMA No.529_2021
5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments
with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and
income of the deceased.
6. The respondent No.3 also filed counter denying the manner
in which the accident has occurred and further contended that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for consideration:-
1. Whether the pleaded accident was occurred on 11.01.2015
at about 22:20 hours near Shanthinagar Bus Stop, Boduppal
to Uppal Road due to rash and negligent driving of driver of
TATA Mini Tipper No.AP-35-U-0176?
2. Whether the accident vehicle is covered by Insurance?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so,
to what amount, from which respondents?
3. To what relief ?
8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4
and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents
RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked.
9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and
decree, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking
enhancement.
ETD,J
MACMA No.529_2021
10. Heard the submissions of Sri
A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Harinath
Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the respondents.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and
that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the principles laid down
by the Apex Court in determining the compensation and has
arrived at a meagre compensation. He further argued that the
deceased was an Employee of GHMC and that inspite of the
evidence available on record, the Tribunal failed to consider the
same. He further submitted that the Tribunal also has not taken
future prospects into consideration and further has awarded
meagre amounts under various heads. He therefore, prayed to
enhance the compensation.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has
submitted that the Tribunal has given a reasoned order and that
the petitioners failed to prove the Salary of the deceased and
therefore, he prayed to uphold the orders of the Tribunal.
13. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of
compensation. If so, to what extent?
ETD,J
MACMA No.529_2021
2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any
interference?
3. To what relief?
14. Point No.1:
a) The case of the petitioners is that the deceased used to work
as an Employee in GHMC and used to earn Rs.10,160/- per
month. In support of their case, they got examined PW3/Satish
Kumar who is the Supervisor under Srinivasa Enterprises in the
GHMC Parking Yard at Kavadiguda and that the deceased-B. Prem
Singh was working as Driver in the Transport Section at
Kavadiguda and that he was drawing a net salary of Rs.10,160/-
per month. The Salary Certificate under Ex.A6 is issued by their
Proprietor of Srinivasa Enterprises. In his cross examination, it is
elicited that the deceased is not an Employee of GHMC and that
Ex.A12 shows that the deceased worked for 29 days and received
Rs.8,460/- for that period. A perusal of Ex.A12 reveals that it is
the extract of the Register maintained by Srinivasa Enterprises
disclosing the salaries paid for the month of December 2014,
wherein Ex.A12 reveals the name of the deceased at Serial No.51
and showing his Savings Account Number and also the salary paid
to him i.e., Rs.8,468/- in the month of December. Thus, the
contention of the counsel and the suggestion made to the witness-
PW3 is proved to be false.
ETD,J
MACMA No.529_2021
b) Further, PW3 is authorised to depose on behalf of Srinivasa
Enterprises under Ex.A11. The Salary Certificate issued under
Ex.A6 discloses that the deceased-B. Prem Singh was working as a
Driver in Transport Section at GHMC Kavadiguda Parking Yard
and was earning a gross salary of Rs.10,160/- and after
deductions his pay is disclosed as Rs.8,763/-, it appears in the
statement of Srinivasa Enterprises. Thus, the petitioner could
prove that the deceased used to work as driver under Srinivasa
Enterprises in the Parking Yard at Kavadiguda and used to earn
Rs.10,160/- as gross salary. Therefore, the same is taken into
consideration, while computing the compensation.
c) The age of the deceased was shown as '43' years in
Ex.A9/School Transfer Certificate and as per Ex.A4/Post Mortem
Examination Report it is '40' years. Thus it is held that he belongs
to the age group between 40-43 years. As per the dicta laid down
in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Others 1, 25% of the income needs to be added towards future
prospects. As the deceased is aged 43 years, adding 25% towards
future prospects i.e., 10,160+2,540 would give Rs.12,700/- per
month, which comes to Rs.12,700/- x 12 = Rs.1,52,400/- per
annum.
AIR 2017 SCC 5157
ETD,J
MACMA No.529_2021
d) Further, a deduction of 1/4th is to be made to his income as
there were five dependents, therefore, the income after deduction
towards personal expenses would come up to Rs.1,14,300/-
(Rs.1,52,400/- (-) Rs.38,100/-).
e) 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 2. The deceased being aged between
40-43 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is '14'.
Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.16,00,200/-
(1,14,300 x 14).
f) 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
the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years.
g) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others 3, 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 claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each
2009 (6) SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
ETD,J
MACMA No.529_2021
towards loss of consortium, hence, the compensation amount
under this head would be Rs.2,42,000/- instead of Rs.40,000/-.
Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and
Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded.
h) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following
compensation amounts:
1. Compensation under the head of loss of Rs.16,00,200/-
dependency
2. Compensation towards loss of consortium Rs.2,42,000/-
3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/-
4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/-
Total Rs.18,78,500/-
i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are
entitled is calculated as Rs.18,78,500/- while the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,50,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners
are entitled for enhancement of compensation.
Hence, Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
15. POINT NO.2:
In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the
order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to
the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the
compensation to Rs.18,78,500/- from that of Rs.5,50,000/- i.e.,
awarded by the Tribunal.
It is further observed that the rate of interest granted by the
Tribunal is 9% per annum, while this Court has been awarding
ETD,J
MACMA No.529_2021
7.5% uniformly in all the cases. Therefore, the same rate of interest
is awarded in this case also.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
16. POINT NO.3:
In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimants is partly
allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 21.10.2019 in
M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, enhancing the compensation from
Rs.5,50,000/- to 18,78,500/- 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.2 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.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 02.05.2025
ds
