Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 554 (TS)

Nukala Saidi Reddy v. Santosh

2023-08-04

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.01.2014 passed in O.P.No.257 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the death of Konuganti (Nookala) Padma (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.11.2009. 3(1) It is stated that petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners No.2 and 3 are daughters and petitioner No.4 is the son of the deceased. On 24.11.2009 at 1.30 p.m. the deceased along with one Polepally Suresh was proceeding from Yellagiri towards Koyyalagudem on National Highway No.9 and at that time the car i.e. Hyundai Accent Car bearing No.AP-09-AP-444 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as such, the deceased and Polepally Suresh received injuries and the car fell into a road side ditch and the deceased was taken to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, where she died. It is further stated that the deceased was working as a Panchayat Secretary and she was aged about 43 years and earning Rs.13,845/- per month. On a complaint, Police Choutuppal registered a case in Cr.No.320 of 2009 under Section 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the said car. Hence, the claim petition. 4. Respondent No.1 died. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2/Pruthvi Raj Chit Funds and Finance, filed a counter denying all the petition allegations. Their main contention is that they already sold the car to respondent No.3 much before the accident and that the car was insured with respondent No.4, therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Respondent No.3 remained ex parte. Respondent No.4/Insurance Company filed a counter denying all the petition allegations. 6. To prove their case, petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the 4th respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 copy of the policy was marked. 7. 5. Respondent No.3 remained ex parte. Respondent No.4/Insurance Company filed a counter denying all the petition allegations. 6. To prove their case, petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the 4th respondent, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 copy of the policy was marked. 7. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.8,55,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inter-alia contended that the Tribunal failed to consider oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A8 and Tribunal erroneously determined earnings of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and that the Tribunal did not grant compensation amount under conventional heads as per the judgments of Apex Court. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal rightly granted compensation and no interference is required from this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 11. There is no dispute with regard to the involvement of a motor vehicle and the manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition and the issue in this regard which was decided in the favour of the appellants/claimants is not challenged, thus attained finality. 12. The main contention of petitioners is that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence available on record with regard to the income of the deceased. In support of their contention, they got examined PW.1 and he deposed that the deceased was working as a Panchayat Secretary and was getting a salary of Rs.13,465/- as per Ex.A8-salary certificate. As per the evidence of PW.3-M.P.D.O., the deceased worked under her since 2003 in M.P.D.O. Office, Choutuppal and was drawing salary as per Ex.A8 i.e. Rs.13,465/- and Ex.X-1 is the service book. 13. As per the evidence of PW.3-M.P.D.O., the deceased worked under her since 2003 in M.P.D.O. Office, Choutuppal and was drawing salary as per Ex.A8 i.e. Rs.13,465/- and Ex.X-1 is the service book. 13. It is observed from the impugned order that the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the High Court of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in Bontu Venkata Rao and another v. Kalla Venkataramana and another, 2003 (3) ALD 314 wherein it was held by a learned Single Judge that it is only the husband who has the duty to maintain his wife and children and the husband and children cannot be said to be the dependants on the income of a wife/mother. In the present case, following the above decision, the Tribunal did not consider the salary of the deceased but only considered the services which she would be rendering to her husband and children. 14. When a similar issue as to whether the brother of a deceased could maintain a claim petition for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act came up before the High Court of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, a learned Single Judge in Susheel Kumar Ezkiel and Ors. Vs. U. Rajasekhar and Ors., MANU/AP/1249/2011 observed as follows: “21. …. The Supreme Court referred to the cleavage of opinion between the High Courts in this regard and held that every legal representative who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realization of compensation and in an Indian family, brothers, sisters and brothers' children and sometimes foster children live together and they are dependent upon the breadwinner of the family. The Supreme Court found no justification to deny them compensation relying upon the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and held that the brother of a person who dies in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to maintain a petition under section 110-A of the Act, if he is a legal representative of the deceased. The Apex Court also concluded that Parliament intended that the expression 'legal representative' in section 110-A of the Act should be given a wider meaning and not confined to the spouse, parent and children of the deceased. The view taken by Gujarat High Court in this regard was upheld…” 15. The Apex Court also concluded that Parliament intended that the expression 'legal representative' in section 110-A of the Act should be given a wider meaning and not confined to the spouse, parent and children of the deceased. The view taken by Gujarat High Court in this regard was upheld…” 15. As seen from the above, the husband of a deceased wife, being a legal representative of the deceased, can clearly maintain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, more particularly, claim compensation for the loss of dependency on the account of the death of the wife. The same is applicable in the case of children upon the death of an earning mother. This Court is of the further view that in the evolved circumstances in the present day, the income of a woman is equally important to that of a man and in case the woman is a wife and mother, it is more likely that she would be contributing her income to the family without any hesitation. In the case on hand, the Court below relied upon Bontu Venkata Rao (supra) wherein it was held that there is a legal obligation cast upon the husband to maintain his own family, but not on the wife to maintain the husband and children and they cannot be said to be dependents on the income of the wife/mother. In the present day, it is not correct. It is needless to say that there are minor children of the deceased who are claiming compensation. They have the right to ask for compensation for the loss of their mother and the same applies to a spouse. In view of the same, they can be treated as dependants as they are legal representatives of the deceased. This Court feels while granting compensation there cannot be any discrimination between male and female and both spouses can be treated to be dependents on each other’s income for the purpose of claiming compensation in the event of an untimely death of either spouse in a motor accident. 16. This Court feels while granting compensation there cannot be any discrimination between male and female and both spouses can be treated to be dependents on each other’s income for the purpose of claiming compensation in the event of an untimely death of either spouse in a motor accident. 16. The Motor Vehicles Act being a welfare legislation, protects the interests of the legal representatives of the deceased and when the Tribunal found the petition under section 166 of the Act to be maintainable and adjudicated the same, it is clear that the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ on the actual income i.e. the salary of the deceased. Thus, this Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.13,465 as per Ex.A8/Salary Certificate. 17. The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.1,61,580/- (Rs.13,465/- x 12). To this, future prospects of 30% i.e. Rs.48,474/- is to be added as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 as the deceased was aged 43 years. Since the dependants are 4 in number, a deduction of 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards personal expenses which the deceased might have spent for himself, is proper. The appropriate multiplier as per the decision of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 is “14”. Thus, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.22,05,567/- (Rs.1,61,580/- + 30% Minus 1/4th x 14). No amount is deducted towards income tax as during the financial year 2009-10, women having annual income below Rs.1,80,000/- were exempted from paying income tax. 18. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium to the petitioners which are very meagre. The Tribunal was justified in not granting compensation for funeral expenses as PW.3 deposed that the Department paid the funeral expenses of the deceased. However, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904. However, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under conventional heads as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 904. petitioner No.1, being the husband of the deceased, is entitled to Rs.44,000/- towards spousal consortium, petitioners No.3 and 4 minor children, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.80,000/-towards loss of parental consortium and petitioners are also entitled to Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate. With regard to interest, the Tribunal rightly granted interest @ 6% p.a. However, this Court is inclined to grant interest at 7.5% p.a., on the enhanced amount in view of the present bank rate of interest. 19. In all, the petitioners/appellants are entitled to Rs.23,46,067/- towards compensation. Though the claimed amount is Rs.20,00,000/-, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh, MANU/SC/0480/2013, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. However, the petitioners/appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation. 20. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.8,55,000/- to Rs.23,46,067/- (Rupees Twenty three lakh, forty six thousand and sixty seven only) with interest @7.5 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the same in accordance with the manner and proportion as determined by the Tribunal subject to payment of deficit Court fee within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.