Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 388 (TS)

Sampangi Ramana v. G. Nagabhushanam

2019-10-23

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants aggrieved by the Award dated 02.09.2005 passed in M.A.T.O.P.No.214 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (FTC-I), Khammam (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 parents and appellant No.4 is sister of the deceased, S.Rambabu. On 22.01.2001, while the deceased, as a coolie, was travelling in a tractor and trailor bearing No.AP20U 832 and 833 along with other coolies under employment of respondent No.2, the driver of the tractor drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the tractor and trailor ran over the body of the deceased. In the said accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died while he was shifting to hospital. The claimants filed aforesaid MATOP claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- against respondent Nos.1 to 3, driver, owner and insurer of the tractor respectively, for the death of the deceased. 3. Before the Tribunal, the respondents filed separate counters 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 the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailor and awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,79,500/- under various heads with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Challenging the same, the appellants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same. 5. Sri K.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that though the appellants produced the evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 100/- per day as a coolie, the Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum and the same is very low. He further submitted that the appellants are also entitled to addition of 40% on 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(6) ALD 170 (SC). He further submitted that the appellants are also entitled to addition of 40% on 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(6) ALD 170 (SC). He further submitted that appellant No.2, the father of the deceased, died and that appellant No.3, being the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904. He further submitted that the Tribunal wrongly exonerated the liability of respondent No.3-insurance company on the ground that the policy is an Act policy, but the deceased is a third party and respondent No.3 cannot avoid its liability. 6. Sri R.Sridhar, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submitted that the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order and sought to dismiss the appeal. 7. Insofar as exoneration of liability of respondent No.3 by the Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal on the ground that the policy is an act policy has exonerated the liability of respondent No.3. A perusal of the record reveals that the deceased was engaged as a coolie by respondent No.2. While travelling in the tractor and trailor, the deceased fell down and the trailor ran over him and he died. For the purpose of considering the accident, the deceased is treated as third party and the Act Policy clearly covers the risk of the deceased and hence, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to dependants of the deceased. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the liability of respondent No.3- insurance company is set aside and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 8. Coming to the compensation, though no proof of income of the deceased was filed, as the deceased is stated to be a coolie, this Court is inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs. 3,000/- per month notionally. Apart from the same, the appellants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- per month notionally. Apart from the same, the appellants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 4,200/- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs. 1,200/-), and after deduction of ?rd as the dependants are two in number, the annual income comes to Rs. 33,600/- (Rs.2,800/- X 12). As the deceased was aged 22 years, the appropriate multiplier is 18'. Hence, the compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' comes to Rs. 6,04,800/- (Rs.33,600/- X 18). Apart from the same, the appellants are entitled to Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional heads, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra). Appellant No.3, being the mother of the deceased, is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium, as per Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram's case (supra). Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs. 7,14,800/- (Rs.6,04,800/- + Rs. 70,000/- + Rs. 40,000/-). The finding of the Tribunal that appellant No.4 is not dependant on the deceased is confirmed. 9. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,79,500/- to Rs. 7,14,800/- holding respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. As the claimants claimed only Rs. 2,50,000/-, they are directed to deposit deficit Court fee before the Tribunal. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.