Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 296 (TS)

Lingampally Bharathi v. A. Srinivas

2019-08-14

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2019
JUDGMENT : T. Amarnath Goud, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the award and decree dated 26.11.2008 passed in MVOP No. 230 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant No. 1 is the wife, appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons, appellant No. 4 is the mother and appellant No. 5 is the father of the deceased Lingampally Venkateswarlu. On 2.12.2003 at about 8 p.m., while the deceased and his son were proceeding on TVS motor cycle bearing No. AP36-TG3136, and when they reached Dambar Plant, Madikonda, the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP36-T8934 and 8935 drove it at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and stopped it suddenly in the middle of the road without any indications, due to which TVS motor cycle hit the tractor-trailer from behind. In the said accident, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. The claimants filed aforesaid MVOP claiming compensation of Rs. 23,00,000 against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer, for the death of the deceased. 3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte. Respondent No. 2 filed its counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer and awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,76,645 with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the same. 5. Mr. Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that though the appellants filed Exh. A7, salary certificate, to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 11,659 per month by working as caretaker in Osmania University, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,479 per month, which is very low. 5. Mr. Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that though the appellants filed Exh. A7, salary certificate, to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 11,659 per month by working as caretaker in Osmania University, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,479 per month, which is very low. He further submitted that the age of the deceased was 48 years and the appropriate multiplier for calculation of compensation is 13' as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), but the Tribunal wrongly adopted the multiplier 10.45'. He further submitted that as the dependants are 5 in number, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 74th of his income towards personal expenditure instead of 73rd. He further submitted that the appellants are also entitled to addition of 30 per cent in the income of the deceased towards future prospects and also Rs. 70,000 towards conventional charges, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). He further submitted that appellant Nos. 4 and 5, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to Rs. 40,000 each towards loss of filial consortium as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC). 6. Mr. Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2, submitted that the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order and sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Though the appellants filed Exh. A7, salary certificate of the deceased, to show that the deceased was working as caretaker in Osmania University and earning Rs. 11,659 per month, the Tribunal has wrongly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 6,479 per month. Therefore, I am inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 11,659 per month. Apart from the same, the appellants are entitled to addition of 30 per cent towards future prospects, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 15,157 (Rs. 11,659 + Rs. 3,498), and after deduction of 74th as the dependants are five in number, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,36,416 (Rs. 11,368 x 12). As the deceased was aged 48 years, the appropriate multiplier is 13'. Hence, the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs. 15,157 (Rs. 11,659 + Rs. 3,498), and after deduction of 74th as the dependants are five in number, the annual income comes to Rs. 1,36,416 (Rs. 11,368 x 12). As the deceased was aged 48 years, the appropriate multiplier is 13'. Hence, the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs. 17,73,408 (Rs. 1,36,416 x 13). Apart from the same, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 70,000 towards conventional heads, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Appellant Nos. 4 and 5, being the parents of the deceased, are entitled to Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 each) towards loss of filial consortium, as per Nanu Ram's case (supra). Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 19,23,408 (Rs. 17,73,408 + Rs. 70,000 + Rs. 80,000). 8. In the result, the MACMA is partly allowed, enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 5,76,645 to Rs. 19,23,408. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.