Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 269 (AP)

T. Balaiah v. Pawam Prakash Agarwal

2012-03-13

R.KANTHA RAO

body2012
Judgment : 1. Heard Smt. B. Roja Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 28.05.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum III Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No.51 of 2006 seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased which was mentioned in the claim petition and in the oral evidence adduced before the learned Tribunal. 3. The deceased-Balaswamy is a mason (skilled labourer) and according to the claimants he was aged 40 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.150/-per day, but the learned Tribunal only considered his income as Rs.125/-per day and awarded compensation of Rs.4,62,000/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 4. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6 lakhs on account of the death of the deceased-Balaswamy in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 02.12.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the oil tanker bearing No.MH 15 AG 6865, which came from behind and dashed the deceased and another, who were coming on a cycle. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on a decision reported in RAMACHANDRAPPA v MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD.1. 2011 (6) ALD 75 (SC) and would submit that in the absence of any evidence adduced by the insurance company, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased as stated in the claim petition as well as in the evidence. In the said case before the Supreme Court the claimants contended that the deceased is a skilled labourer and was earning Rs.4,500/-per month. The Supreme Court held that since the insurance company remained ex parte and there was no denial for the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the claimants about the income of the deceased. In the instant case, the insurance company specifically denied the income mentioned in the claim petition and contested the case. In the instant case, the insurance company specifically denied the income mentioned in the claim petition and contested the case. Further basing on the oral testimony of the two other witnesses adduced by the claimants in proof of the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal reasonably considered the income of the deceased at Rs.125/-and therefore, from the judgment referred above relied on by the learned counsel it is not possible for this Court to take a different view to that of the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, but as per the judgment in SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER2. 2009 ACJ 1298 , since the appellants 3 and 4 are minor children 1/4th shall be deducted towards personal and living expenses. The monthly income of the deceased is Rs.3,750/-, from this 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which comes to Rs.3,750/-x ¼ = Rs. 937.50 ps Therefore, the contribution to the family comes to Rs.3,750/-minus Rs.937.50 ps = Rs.2812.50 ps. which can be rounded up to Rs.2813/-per month. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2813/-x 12 = Rs.33,756/-. The age of the deceased at 40 years also rightly taken by the learned Tribunal, which was mentioned in postmortem report-Ex.A.5 as well as inquest report-Ex.A.4. The multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased is ’15’. Thus, the above said amount has to be capitalized with ‘15’ i.e. Rs.33,756/-x 15 = Rs.5,06,340/-. This apart, the second appellant-widow is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of consortium. Further, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the appellants-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,26,340/-. The grant of interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum being reasonable needs no interference in this appeal. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 6. In the result, with the above enhancement in the compensation and reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.