Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 674 (TS)

Marepally Ellamma v. Navatha Transport

2020-09-04

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2020
ORDER : 1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, ?the Tribunal?), Warangal, by award dated 16.6.2010 passed in MVOP No.467 of 2007, the claimants preferred this appeal. 2. Appellants / Claimants being the legal representatives of one Marepally Ashok, hereinafter referred to as ?the deceased?, filed MVOP No.467 of 2007 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the MVOP till realization for the death of the deceased in a road accident that occurred on 25.3.2006 at Shayampet allegedly caused by a lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 766. First is the owner and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said lorry. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their livelihood. Hence the O.P. 3. First and second respondents remained ex parte. Third respondent, being the local branch of the second respondent filed counter denying the material allegations such as age, income and avocation of the deceased, made by the claimants. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. The third respondent did not lead any kind of evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the claimant Nos.3 to 8 cannot be treated as the legal representatives of the deceased. That finding need not be interfered since they are making self earning for their livelihood. 5. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Hamali in a rice mill and earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. They filed Ex.A.6 certificate issued by P.W.3, the employer of the deceased. However, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- p.a. and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore the contribution of the deceased to the family was fixed at Rs.10,000/- p.a. The deceased was bachelor. Therefore, for determining the multiplier, the Tribunal took the age of the youngest parent i.e. first claimant, who was aged 45 years by the date of filing of the O.P and applied multiplier 13, thereby fixed the compensation for total loss of dependency as Rs.1,30,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. As stated supra, aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants preferred this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. 7. As seen from the impugned award, it is seen that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- p.m. as notional income in the absence of proof of income though there is evidence on record in the form of Ex.A.6 salary certificate and the evidence of P.W.3, that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. as Hamali. In the light of the judgment of the Hon?ble apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, (2011) 13 SCC 236 , the notional monthly income of the deceased has to be fixed at Rs.4,500/- p.m. The deceased was aged 26 years by the date of accident. In the light of the judgment of the Hon?ble apex Court in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation& Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier has to be fixed at 17 for the age group of 26 years. The Tribunal erred on these two counts. 8. Since the deceased was unmarried, the contribution of the deceased to the family should have to be taken 1/2 instead of 1/3rd. Accordingly, the compensation comes to 17 x 2,250 x 12 = Rs.4,59,000/-. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards filial consortium. However, in the light of the judgment of the Hon?ble apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 SCC Online SC 1546, the claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,39,000/-. As per the ratio laid down in Ramla vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd, (2019) 2 SCC 192 , there is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the M.V.Act is to award ?just compensation?. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. 9. The said amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the O.P. before the Tribunal till realization. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. 9. The said amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the O.P. before the Tribunal till realization. The respective shares of the claimants shall be apportioned as decided by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this MACMA shall stand disposed of.