Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1281 (TS)

B. Anjanamma v. Pebbati Mallesh

2025-10-24

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J. Heard Mr. Pallati Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for appellants-claimants and Ms. T.Padmaja, learned counsel representing Mr. Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants challenging the order and decree dated 19.04.2022 in MVOP No.2830 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’) and seeking to enhance the compensation amount. 3. The appellants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased-B.Krishna filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor accident that occurred on 08.05.2016 at about 16.00 hours while the deceased was proceeding towards Damaragidda village on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-DP-0486. When the deceased reached near Jagigutta Gate, Ibrahimpally village, Chevalla Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, one Piaggio Goods Auto bearing registration No.TS-06-UA-2636 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) came in rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over it and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and on the way to hospital, he succumbed to injuries. 3.1. The Police, Chevella Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.82/2016 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and filed charge sheet. 3.2. The appellants/claimants claimed that the deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a labour-cum-labour contractor and contributing the same to his family members. Due to sudden death of deceased, the appellants/claimants lost their source of income. 4. The respondent No.1 i.e., owner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. 5. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the allegations i.e., the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, and further averred that the compensation amount claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. 4. The respondent No.1 i.e., owner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. 5. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the allegations i.e., the manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity, and further averred that the compensation amount claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and finally prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, has categorically held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.15,03,856/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and fastened the liability on the respondents jointly and severally and assailing the same, the appellants/claimants have filed this Appeal for enhancement of compensation. 7. The main contention of the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the earnings of the deceased and though the appellants/claimants claimed the earnings of the deceased at Rs.20,000/- as the deceased was labour-cum-labour contractor, the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing the earnings at Rs.8,000/- per annum and deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenditure of the deceased though the dependents of the deceased are five members and the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal failed to award consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each of the claimants and the interest awarded by the Tribunal is very less and the same needs to be enhanced. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the age of the deceased as 31, though they claimed the age of the deceased as 30 years, for computation of proper compensation. Perusal of the record, P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the age of the deceased was 31 years as on the date of the accident. As such, the admission of P.W.1 itself is sufficient to prove that the deceased was 31 years as on the date of the accident and therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 31 years for computing the proper compensation and the same needs no interference on that ground. 9. As such, the admission of P.W.1 itself is sufficient to prove that the deceased was 31 years as on the date of the accident and therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 31 years for computing the proper compensation and the same needs no interference on that ground. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company would submit that the Tribunal after appreciating the facts has arrived at just compensation and that the earnings of Rs.8,000/- per month is just and proper in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malakappa and others v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and another , [2025 SCC Online SC 979] , and that the learned counsel for insurance company fairly submits that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra). 10. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month is concerned, as per the record, it is contended that the deceased was working as labour-cum-labour contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, but, however they did not produce any material to show that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as being labour and labour contractor. 11. Perusal of the record would show that the Tribunal observed that on reasonable assessment on hypothesis, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month and as per Malakappa (stated supra), the amount can be earned by any person without any avocation can be taken and therefore, Tribunal is justified in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. 12. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for appellants that the dependents of the deceased are five in number and, therefore, 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased to be deducted. 12. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for appellants that the dependents of the deceased are five in number and, therefore, 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased to be deducted. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses and the same needs to be modified and as the dependents are five, 1/4th amount has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra) and the same is liable to be modified to that extent. 13. Perusal of the impugned award, under the conventional heads i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively. With regard to award of consortium, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , at paragraph No.59.8 held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. In Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while referring its own judgment in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- to each claimants. Therefore, in view of the above decision, the appellants/claimants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each towards consortium. The petitioners are also entitled to receive the aforesaid amount with enhanced amount at the rate of 10% for every three years. Thus, petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.44,000/- x 5) towards consortium, Rs.16,500/- each (Rs.15,000/- +10% of Rs.15,000/-) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses since first block period of three years have elapsed from the date of the award i.e., 19.04.2022. 14. The other contention of the learned counsel for appellants that the Tribunal awarded the less interest @ 6% per annum and the interest awarded by Tribunal is on lesser side and thus, requires interference of this Court and accordingly, the interest is enhanced to 7.5% per annum. 15. 14. The other contention of the learned counsel for appellants that the Tribunal awarded the less interest @ 6% per annum and the interest awarded by Tribunal is on lesser side and thus, requires interference of this Court and accordingly, the interest is enhanced to 7.5% per annum. 15. In view of the above, the compensation amount is recalculated as under: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 Income Rs.8,000/- per month 2 Future prospects Rs.3,200/- p.m., (Rs.40% of income i.e., Rs.8,000/-) 3 Total income Rs.11,200/- p.m., Rs.8000/- + Rs.3,200/-) 4 Deduction towards personal expenses Rs.2,800/- (i.e., one-fourth of the total income) 5 Net monthly income Rs.8,400/- (i.e., Rs.11,200/- (-) Rs.2,800/-) 6 Multiplier 16 7 Loss of dependency Rs.16,12,800/- (i.e., Rs.8,400/- x 16 x 12) 8 Compensation for loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- x 5) Rs. 2,20,000/- 9 Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- 10 Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- Total compensation to be paid : Rs.18,65,800/- 16. The Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation amount is reduced from Rs.15,03,856/- to Rs.18,65,800/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5.% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 17. The respondent No.2-insurance company herein is directed to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 18. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount as per the apportionment awarded by the Tribunal. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.