Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1680 (TS)

Machkuri Rukkavva v. Siraj Khan

2025-12-02

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1 st Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in O.P.No.655 of 2000 dated 04.02.2005. 2.1 Appellants are the petitioners and respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 2.2 It is mentioned in the cause title of the appeal that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, hence they are not necessary parties to the appeal. 3. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents and appellant Nos.4 and 5 – petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the children of the deceased Machkuri Bhumaiah. 4. Appellants - petitioners have filed petition under Section 166(1)(C) of the MV Act read with Rules 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on account of the death of Machkuri Bhumaiah S/o. Machkuri Sailoo on 03.06.2000 at Jagannathpally village, Bichkunda Mandal. 5.1 It is stated in the O.P. that on 03.06.2000 Machkuri Bhumaiah was proceeding on his cycle from Madnoor towards Pitlam, when he reached Jagannathpally village, on Nanded – Hyderabad road, at about 11.30 a.m. the DCM van bearing No.AP- 31-U-559 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed Machkuri Bhumaiah, due to which, he fell down and front wheel of the van ran over the head and died on the spot. On the complaint, Police Bichkunda has registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2000 under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the vehicle. 5.2 Deceased Machkuri Bhumaiah was an agriculturist and was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month and prayed to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 6.1 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6.2 Respondent No.3 has filed its counter and denied the manner in which the accident has occurred. It is contented that the driver of the van is a necessary party to the petition, compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismissed the same. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. 6.2 Respondent No.3 has filed its counter and denied the manner in which the accident has occurred. It is contented that the driver of the van is a necessary party to the petition, compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismissed the same. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No.AP-31-U-559 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and against which of the respondent? 3. To what relief? 8. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, also examined PW2 - Bhumaiah, PW3 - Vittal and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Respondent No.3 – petitioner No.3 did not adduce any evidence and got marked Ex.B1-policy. 9. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the appellants – petitioners coupled with Exs.A1 to A7 and Ex.B1 has awarded compensation of Rs.3,37,200/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization holding respondent Nos.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. O.P.against respondent No.2 is dismissed. 10.1 Learned counsel for the appellants – petitioners submits that the Tribunal did not properly consider the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and exhibits marked thereon. The Tribunal ought to have granted compensation as prayed for in view of the fact that the deceased was aged about 26 years as on the date of accident and not 36 years. The Tribunal erred in coming to a conclusion that the deceased was not carrying on agriculture and not earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month even though evidence was let in to that effect. The Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.2,400/- per month instead of taking it at Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal ought to have granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 9% and prayed to enhance the compensation. Counsel has filed calculation memo claiming an amount of Rs.8,20,000/- under different heads. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased Machkuri Bhumaiah at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per month and he has also filed calculation memo showing that the appellants - petitioners are entitled for Rs.7,06,000/- only. 12. Counsel has filed calculation memo claiming an amount of Rs.8,20,000/- under different heads. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased Machkuri Bhumaiah at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per month and he has also filed calculation memo showing that the appellants - petitioners are entitled for Rs.7,06,000/- only. 12. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material. 13. Now the points for consideration are: (i) Whether the appellants – petitioners were granted just compensation, if so? (ii) Whether the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.655 of 2000 dated 04.02.2005 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court? POINT NOs.1 AND 2: 14. Appellants have challenged the quantum in the appeal. It is not disputed that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM van bearing No.AP-31-U-559. 15. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased Machkuri Bhumaiah at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per month and the observations made in the paragraph No.7 of the award are as under: According to the petitioners, the deceased was an agriculturist and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Pwl marked Ex A6 and A7 xerox copies of Pass Books. Ex A6 discloses that the 1st petitioner Rukkavva is owning Ac 1-09 gts of land in Sy No. 130 situated at Shantpur in Bichkunda mandal of Nizamabad Dist. Ex A7 discloses that the 2 nd petitioner Machkuri Sailoo who is father of deceased is owning Ac 1-3½ gts of land in Sy No. 5, 5/1, 13/RU t Tubdal village of Bichkunda mandal in Nizamabad Dist. The said petitioners 1 and 2 are alive and the lands are available to the family of the petitioners. At the most, it can be said that on account of death of deceased, the petitioners lost supervision of the deceased over the said lands. There is no, dependable evidence regarding income of the deceased that he was getting Rs. 6,000/- per month from agriculture. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, income of the deceased is taken into account at Rs. 2,400/- per month and nothing more. Thus the annual income of the deceased is arrived at Rs. There is no, dependable evidence regarding income of the deceased that he was getting Rs. 6,000/- per month from agriculture. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, income of the deceased is taken into account at Rs. 2,400/- per month and nothing more. Thus the annual income of the deceased is arrived at Rs. 2,400/- x 12 = 28,800/- One third thereof shall be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased had he been alive and thus the net annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.19,200/- and if the said annual loss of dependency is multiplied with the relevant multiplier (16), the total loss of dependency comes at 19,200 x 16 = 3,07,200- 00 Apart from the said amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards consortium to 1st petitioner, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and also Rs.5,000/- towards expenses for transportation of dead body and funeral. Thus in total, the compensation arrived in this case is Rs.3,37,200/-.” 16. The occupation of the deceased Machkuri Bhumaiah is shown as agriculture in the main petition and income is shown as Rs.6,000/- per month. Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is owning Ac.1-09 gts of land in Survey No.130, situated at Shantpur in Bichkunda mandal of Nizamabad District [Ex.A6]. The appellant No.2 – petitioner No.2, who is the father of the deceased is also village of Bichkunda mandal in Nizamabad District [Ex.A7]. The age of appellant No.2 – petitioner No.2 is shown as 55 years as on the date of filing the claim petition i.e., 12.06.2000. The observation of the learned Tribunal that the appellants – petitioners have lost the supervision of the deceased Machkuri Bhumaiah over the said land is incorrect. The conclusion of the learned Tribunal in arriving that the income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month is on a lesser side and this Court is of the view that if an amount of Rs.3,000/- is fixed towards the income of the deceased will meet the ends of justice as the accident has occurred on 03.06.2000. 17. The age of the deceased Machkuri Bhumaiah is shown as 26 years in the claim petition, 30 years in Ex.A1 – FIR, 36 years in Ex.A2 - charge sheet and 38 years in Ex.A3 - inquest report. 17. The age of the deceased Machkuri Bhumaiah is shown as 26 years in the claim petition, 30 years in Ex.A1 – FIR, 36 years in Ex.A2 - charge sheet and 38 years in Ex.A3 - inquest report. As the age of the deceased is different in the documents, this Court is of the view that the age of the deceased is taken as 38 years as per Ex.A3 - inquest report and the appropriate multiplier in the age group of 36 to 40 years is ‘15’ and the future prospects below 40 years is 40% [self employed]. 18. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: Sl.No. Name of the Head Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.3,000/- per month 2. Deduct 1/4 th towards personal expenses (as per Smt. Sarla varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 Rs.2,250/- Rs.3,000 – Rs.750 1/4 th of 3,000 = Rs. 750/- 3. Add 40% future prospects (as per National Insurance company Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017)16 SCC 680 Rs.3,150/- [2,250 + 900] (2,250 x 40%) = 900 4. Annual income Rs.37,800/- (3,150 x 12) 5. Multiplier ‘15’ Rs.5,67,000/- (3,78,00 x 15) 6. Loss of estate Rs.16,500/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- 8. Consortium (for five persons) Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs.44,000/- each) Total compensation Rs.8,20,000/- 19. The Tribunal has awarded 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. This Court is of the view that the interest granted by the Tribunal is appropriate. 20. In the result, MACMA.No.3691 of 2008 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 04.02.2005, passed in O.P.No.655 of 2000, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3,37,200/- is enhanced to Rs.8,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) The respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Appellants – petitioners are directed to pay Court fee on the enhanced amount. c) The respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. d) Appellants – petitioners are directed to pay Court fee on the enhanced amount. e) Appellant No.1 – petitioner No.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,28,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw her entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. f) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 – petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.82,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw their entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. a) Appellant Nos.4 and 5 – petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are entitled for Rs.1,64,000/- each with costs and interest thereon. As the appellant Nos.4 and 5 – petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are minors, their share amounts shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs.