Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 345 (TS)

M. Jyothi v. Rahuf Gouri

2019-09-16

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2019
JUDGMENT : T. Amarnath Goud, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17.1.2015 passed in OP No. 2765 of 2013 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.8.2013 at about 9.30 p.m., when the deceased M. Satyanarayana was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. AP-23-P 5391 from Haridaspur to Malkapur Chourasta and on reaching Malkapur Chourasta, one lorry bearing No. AP-16-V-1186 came behind him at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his motor cycle and caused his death. Hence, the claimant Nos. 1 to 5, who are wife, children and parents of the deceased, filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, claiming compensation of Rs. 35,00,000 on the ground that they all are dependants of the deceased who was working in Pepsi Company Limited and earning Rs. 14,873 per month. 3. In the claim petition, the respondent No. 2-insurer filed 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 on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle only. So far as granting of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 17,98,960, i.e., Rs. 17,73,960 towards loss of income; Rs. 10,000 towards funeral, Rs. 10,000 towards loss to estate and Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, it partly allowed the claim petition with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum throughout. 5. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, appellants-claimants filed the present appeal, seeking for enhancement of the compensation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 2 insurer. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends that it is a case of death and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years and earning Rs. 14,873 per month by working in a private organisation. He further contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 17,73,960 by taking monthly income at Rs. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants contends that it is a case of death and at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 38 years and earning Rs. 14,873 per month by working in a private organisation. He further contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 17,73,960 by taking monthly income at Rs. 14,783 instead of Rs. 14,873 as per his pay slip; that Tribunal also erred in deducting 73rd for personal expenses instead of 1/4th as there are five dependants; that the Tribunal ignored awarding future prospects; that the Tribunal also ignored awarding compensation under conventional heads and towards loss of filial consortium as per the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) and Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC). Therefore, the claimants are entitled for fair compensation. 8. Mr. P. Phalguna Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 2-insurer, contends that the Tribunal awarded compensation in a just and proper manner and he supported the order passed by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken income of the claimant at Rs. 14,783 per month. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the deceased working in a private organisation and earning Rs. 14,873 as per Exh. A10, pay slip, so the said income may be taken into consideration. 10. In spite of that, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the deceased is entitled to be granted future prospects at 50 per cent as he was aged about 38 years at the time of death and he had a permanent job. Then his income comes to Rs. 22,310 (Rs. 14,873 + Rs. 7,437) per month. Considering the number of dependants of the deceased, 1/2th of the said amount towards personal expenditure can be deducted, then it comes to Rs. 16,733 (Rs. 22,310 - Rs. 5,577), i.e., Rs. 2,00,796 per annum. Further, since at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 38 years, the Tribunal has rightly taken multiplier 15'. Hence, the total loss of income in respect of the contribution towards his family members comes to Rs. 30,11,940 (Rs. 2,00,796 x 15). 11. Further, the Tribunal granted Rs. 10,000 for funeral, Rs. 5,577), i.e., Rs. 2,00,796 per annum. Further, since at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 38 years, the Tribunal has rightly taken multiplier 15'. Hence, the total loss of income in respect of the contribution towards his family members comes to Rs. 30,11,940 (Rs. 2,00,796 x 15). 11. Further, the Tribunal granted Rs. 10,000 for funeral, Rs. 10,000 towards loss to estate and Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium, totalling Rs. 25,000. However, compensation granted under all these heads is to be re-determined since the deceased was a married person. The claimants are entitled to be granted compensation of Rs. 70,000 towards conventional heads, which covered all these heads, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Hence, instead of granting Rs. 25,000 under all these heads, an amount of Rs. 70,000 is granted to the claimants. 12. Further, being parents of the deceased, the parents of the deceased are entitled to be granted compensation of Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 each) and the minor children of the deceased are also entitled to be granted Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 50,000 each) towards loss of filial consortium as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Nanu Ram (supra). 13. Except the above modification, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under other heads shall remain unchanged. Therefore, the claimants are granted total compensation of Rs. 32,61,940 (rounded off to Rs. 32,62,000) under various heads as follows: Sl.No. Name of head Award by Tribunal Award by this court (1) Loss of income Rs.17,73,960 Rs.30,11,940 (2) Funeral expenses Rs.10,000 Nil (3) Loss of estate Rs.10,000 Nil (4) Loss of consortium Rs.5,000 Nil (5) Conventional heads Nil Rs.70,000 (6) Loss of filial and parental consortium Nil Rs.1,80,000 Total Rs.17,98,960 Rs.32,61,940 Rounded off Rs.32,62,000 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 17,98,960 to Rs. 32,62,000. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7.5 per cent per annum. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with proportionate costs and interest within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants-claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount. No costs. 15. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.