Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 287 (TS)

Thallagudem Lavanya , Sharada v. D. Chandraiah

2025-04-09

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.) The appellants – claimants filed M.A.C.M.A.No.128 of 2021 seeking enhancement of compensation, while M.A.C.M.A.No.374 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.11.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1175 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”), granting compensation of Rs.15,62,120/- against the claim of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of one T.Raju (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in the accident occurred on 04.04.2016. 2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on 04.04.2016, the deceased T.Raju was proceeding on his bike bearing No.AP 09 AQ 0445 from Ibrahimpatnam to Dandumailaram Village and when he reached near Gurunanak Engineering College, one Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 24 X – 0370 & AP 29 TB 3705 came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the bike of the deceased, due to which he fell down, sustained fatal injuries and died. Therefore, the petitioners have filed an application seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1/the owner of the crime vehicle and respondent No.3 who was the driver of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. 5. Respondent No.2/the insurer of the crime vehicle, filed counter denying the material averments as to the occurrence of the accident, age, income and avocation of the deceased. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the bike rider and that there was no negligence of the tractor driver. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the deceased died in the road accident occurred on 04.04.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP24X – 0370 & AP-29TB 3705? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. Whether the policy is in force at the time of accident? 4. To what relief?” 7. At the time of trial, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 was marked. 8. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. Whether the policy is in force at the time of accident? 4. To what relief?” 7. At the time of trial, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 was marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.15,62,120/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.128 of 2021 while the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.No.374 of 2021. 9. Heard the submission of Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the claimants and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.20 Lakhs but has awarded less compensation and that the Tribunal failed to accept the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and has assessed a very low income of Rs.6,500/- and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and towards loss of consortium. 11. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal has grossly erred in granting compensation to the petitioners and that there was contributory negligence on part of the deceased. He further contended that there is no rash and negligence of the tractor driver. He further contended that the deduction towards personal and living expenses should be 1/4 th but the Tribunal has taken 1/5 th which is erroneous. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have taken only Rs.4,500/- per month towards earnings of the deceased but has wrongly assessed the income as Rs.6,500/- in the absence of any proof. He therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 24 X – 0370 & AP 29 TB 3705, resulting in the death of the deceased? 2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the deceased in the occurrence of accident? 3. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 2. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the deceased in the occurrence of accident? 3. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 4. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 5. To what relief? 13. POINT NOS.1 AND 2: a) PW1 is the wife of the deceased and she is not an eye witness to the accident. PW2 is an eye witness to the accident. His evidence reveals that he was at the scene of accident and that he witnessed the accident and he deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trolley. b) A perusal of Exs.A1 and A2 reveals that First Information Report was registered against the driver of Tractor and Trolley and the charge sheet is also filed against him, after investigation by the police. Therefore, based on the above said evidence of PW2 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the tractor and trolley and that there is no contributory negligence of the deceased. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.3: a) The petitioners asserted the occupation of the deceased as Mason and that he was working under Naidu builders. PW3 was examined to prove the income of the deceased saying that the deceased worked under Naidu builders by taking sub-contracts of constructions of new and old buildings at Ibrahipatnam Town Limits and that he used to earn an average monthly income of Rs.20,000/. In his cross examination nothing much was elicited to discredit his evidence. However, in the absence of any documentary proof, the income as stated by PW3 cannot be taken. b) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , [(2011) 12 SCC 236] , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. But in the present case, the deceased was a vegetable vendor and also working as a Mason, as per the contention of the claim petitioners. But in the present case, the deceased was a vegetable vendor and also working as a Mason, as per the contention of the claim petitioners. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas’s case, the monthly income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal to be Rs.6,500/- per month appears to be well justified. c) In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others , AIR 2017 SCC 5157 40% of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. Adding 40% towards future prospects would give Rs.9,100/- (Rs.6,500/-x 40/100 = 2600/-) per month, which comes to Rs.9,100/- x 12 = Rs.1,09,200/- per annum. d) Further, a deduction of 1/4th is to be made to the income of the deceased as there were five dependents, but the Tribunal has taken 1/5 th as a deduction. Therefore, after deducting 1/4 th AIR 2017 SCC 5157 towards personal expenses, the income of the deceased would come upto Rs.81,900/- (Rs.1,09,200/- (-) Rs.27,300/-). e) The Post Mortem Examination report filed under Ex.A3 reveals the age of the deceased as 27 years. Therefore, the age as revealed under Ex.A3 is taken into consideration. The multiplier should be chosen with regard to the age of the deceased, as per column No.4 of the table given in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ 2009 (6) SCC 121 ] . The deceased being aged 27 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘17’. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes upto Rs.13,92,300/- (Rs.81,900/- x 17) f) With regard to the consortium, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.44,000/- towards consortium to the 1 st petitioner who is the wife of the deceased but not awarded to the 2 nd and 5 th petitioners who are the children, 3 rd and 4 th petitioners who are the parents of the deceased. Instead, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,500/- under the head love and affection, which is not proper. g) In the light of Pranay Sethi ’s case, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and further it was held that there has to be 10% enhancement in these amounts for every three years. g) In the light of Pranay Sethi ’s case, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and further it was held that there has to be 10% enhancement in these amounts for every three years. h) In Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others , [ (2018) 18 SCC 130 ] , the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi ’s case and has further held that not only the spouse but the parents and children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of consortium. Therefore, in the present case, all the claimants would get Rs.48,400/- each towards ‘loss of consortium’, hence, the compensation amount under this head would be Rs.2,42,000/- instead of Rs.44,000/-. Further, it is held that under the heads of funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- and loss of estate Rs.18,150/- would be just and proper. i) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1. Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Rs.13,92,300/- 2. Compensation towards loss of consortium Rs.2,42,000/- 3. Compensation towards loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 4. Compensation towards funeral expenses Rs.18,150/- Total Rs.16,70,600/- j) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,62,120/- while the claimants are held to be entitled to a compensation of Rs.16,70,600/- and hence, the same is enhanced to the said extent. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 15. POINT NO.4 : In view of the finding arrived at point Nos.1 to 3, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified. The compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.15,62,120/- is enhanced to Rs.16,70,600/-. 16. POINT NO.5 : In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.374 of 2021 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed, while the M.A.C.M.A.No.128 of 2021 filed by the claimants is partly allowed modifying the order and decree dated 11.11.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1175 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,62,120/- to Rs.16,70,600/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.