Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 397 (AP)

Syed Fathima Begum v. Sangamesh Chidri

2012-04-04

R.KANTHA RAO

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants against the award and decree dated 01-11-2002 passed by the IV-Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OP.No. 2310 of 2000. 2. Heard Sri M.Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellants-claimants and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2-United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad. The appeal against Respondent No.1 was dismissed for default on 28-1-2010. 3. The facts in brief are that the deceased, who was a painter by profession said to be earning Rs.3,000=00 per month received fatal injury in the accident that occurred on 09-10-2000 at about 12:15 p.m., near Ghareeb Nawaz Hotel, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad, due to involvement of the lorry bearing No. AIT 6366. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid lorry and fastened liability on the first respondent-owner and second respondent-Insurance Company jointly and severally.. The said finding have not been appealed against by the respondents and became final. The question requires determination in the present appeal is “whether the compensation granted by the learned Claims Tribunal, is just and reasonable or requires any enhancement as claimed by the appellants-claimants in the present appeal. 4. The appellants-claimants, who are widow, parents and two minor children of the deceased have filed a claim-petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000=-00. After making enquiry into the said claim, the learned Claims Tribunal by its award granted compensation of Rs.3,28,000=00 under various heads. The appellants-claimants contended in this appeal that as against the assertion made by the claimants in the claim-petition that the deceased was a painter and was earning Rs.3,000=00 per month, determined his income at Rs.2,000=00 per month and instead of making 1/4th deduction, deducted 1/3rd towards personal and living expenditure and therefore, the compensation has to be properly computed and just and reasonable compensation be awarded. 5. 5. On the other hand, Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company has contended that since the accident took place in the year 2000, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly took the income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/- per month on the ground that the claimants failed to substantiate the income of the deceased by adducing any sort of documentary evidence and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal does not require any interference in this appeal. 6. It was specifically contended by the claimants before the learned Claims Tribunal that the deceased was a painter, aged 25 years and was earning Rs.3,000=00 per month. Though the Insurance Company repudiated the said averment in general, in the course of its counter did not dispute specifically the fact that the deceased was a painter. Therefore, the question now arises in this appeal is whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in reducing the income stated by the claimants to Rs.2,000=00 stating that no documentary evidence is placed in proof of income. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in RAMCHANDRAPPA V/s. MANAGER, ROYAL SUNDARAM ALIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (2011 (6) ALD-75 (SC). 7. In the afore-mentioned case before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the injured-claimant that he was 35 years, working as coolie and was earning Rs.4,500=00 per month at the time of accident. The learned Claims Tribunal reduced the income of the claimant to a sum of Rs.3,000=00 on the assumption that wages of labourer during relevant period viz., in the year 2004 were Rs.100/-per day. The Supreme Court held that the approach of the Tribunal is not justified, as the claim of the claimant was not repudiated by the Insurance Company and that the claimant who was working as a coolie cannot be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim and that in the absence of any other evidence contrary to the claim made by him, the Tribunal should have accepted his claim, which appears to be honest and bonafide. Accordingly, the Supreme Court accepted the statement of the claimant that his monthly income was Rs.4,500=00 per month on the date of the accident. 8. Similarly in LAXMI DEVI AND ORS. Accordingly, the Supreme Court accepted the statement of the claimant that his monthly income was Rs.4,500=00 per month on the date of the accident. 8. Similarly in LAXMI DEVI AND ORS. V/s. MOHAMMED TABBAR AND ANR(AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT-1858), the Supreme Court accepted the view taken by the High Court that even unskilled labourer in these days can easily earn Rs.100/-per day and Rs.3,000=00 per month and, therefore, the High Court was held satisfied in considering the income to be Rs.,36,000=00 per annum. 9. Coming to the facts of the present case, there was no serious challenge to the statement of the claimants that the deceased was a painter by profession. The second respondent-Insurance Company also did not adduce any evidence to enable the learned Claims Tribunal or this Court to view that the income of the deceased was below Rs.3,000=00 per month. The second respondent-Insurance Company made a general denial of the statement of the claimants during the course of its counter. In the decision referred supra-1. the Supreme Court pointed out that the claimant, who was working as coolie cannot be expected to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim as to his income and in the absence of any documentary evidence contrary to the claim made by him, the Tribunal should have accepted his income, which statement appears to be honest and bonafide. In the present case, the deceased was admittedly a painter, aged 25 years on the date of his death. The statement made by the claimants that by working as painter the deceased was earning Rs.3,000=00 can be considered to be honest and genuine. Not only in the judgment, second cited supra but in several other judgments, the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have held consistently that the income of a labourer, who is hale and healthy and able body can be considered at Rs.3,000=00. In the instant case, the learned Claims Tribunal in my considered view ought to have accepted the statement of the appellants about the income of the deceased which was at Rs,3,000=00 per month and should have computed the compensation on the said basis.. 10. Thus, the compensation has to be computed basing on the judgment of SARLA VERMA AND ORS V/s. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (reported in 2009 ACJ-1298)Considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000=00 per month, his annual income comes to Rs.36,000=00. 10. Thus, the compensation has to be computed basing on the judgment of SARLA VERMA AND ORS V/s. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (reported in 2009 ACJ-1298)Considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000=00 per month, his annual income comes to Rs.36,000=00. Since the dependants are five in number, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenditure of the deceased, which comes to Rs. 27,000=00. The multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased as per the judgment in SARLA VERMA is “18l”. To arrive the loss of dependency, the above amount has to be capitalized with the multiplier “18”, which comes to Rs.4,86,000=00. This apart, the first appellant-claimant, who is the widow of the deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000=00 towards loss of consortium. The appellants-claimants are further entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000=00 towards funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000=00 towards loss of estate. In all the appellants-claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,06,000=00 as compensation. It is now well settled that irrespective of the claim made by the claimants, the Court has to award the compensation, which is just and reasonable. The Court is not supposed to restrict the compensation to the claim made in the claim-petition even though it exceeds the claim actually made in the claim-petition. The appellants-claimants are therefore entitled for compensation of Rs.5,06,000=00. The interest however granted @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, which is on higher side is reduced to 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellants-claimants succeeds and the same is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.