Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 594 (TS)

Banoth Gayathri v. Saisuru Shyam Goud

2025-05-02

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by the claimants, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 21.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 11.01.2015 at about 22:20 hours when the deceased-B.Prem Singh was proceeding on his Scooter bearing No.AP-29-BR-2443 from Shantinagar to his residence at Boduppal, the crime vehicle-Tata Mini Tipper bearing No.AP-35-U-0176 driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, hit the deceased, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and died. It is their case that the deceased was aged about 43 years, working in GHMC, earning monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, they sought a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. 6. The respondent No.3 also filed counter denying the manner in which the accident has occurred and further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the deceased. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether the pleaded accident was occurred on 11.01.2015 at about 22:20 hours near Shanthinagar Bus Stop, Boduppal to Uppal Road due to rash and negligent driving of driver of TATA Mini Tipper No.AP-35-U-0176? 2. Whether the accident vehicle is covered by Insurance? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount, from which respondents? 3. To what relief ? 8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked. 9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement. 10. Heard the submissions of Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the respondents. 11. 9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement. 10. Heard the submissions of Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the respondents. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the principles laid down by the Apex Court in determining the compensation and has arrived at a meagre compensation. He further argued that the deceased was an Employee of GHMC and that inspite of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal failed to consider the same. He further submitted that the Tribunal also has not taken future prospects into consideration and further has awarded meagre amounts under various heads. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal has given a reasoned order and that the petitioners failed to prove the Salary of the deceased and therefore, he prayed to uphold the orders of the Tribunal. 13. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. If so, to what extent? 2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief? 14. Point No.1: a) The case of the petitioners is that the deceased used to work as an Employee in GHMC and used to earn Rs.10,160/- per month. In support of their case, they got examined PW3/Satish Kumar who is the Supervisor under Srinivasa Enterprises in the GHMC Parking Yard at Kavadiguda and that the deceased-B. Prem Singh was working as Driver in the Transport Section at Kavadiguda and that he was drawing a net salary of Rs.10,160/- per month. The Salary Certificate under Ex.A6 is issued by their Proprietor of Srinivasa Enterprises. In his cross examination, it is elicited that the deceased is not an Employee of GHMC and that Ex.A12 shows that the deceased worked for 29 days and received Rs.8,460/- for that period. The Salary Certificate under Ex.A6 is issued by their Proprietor of Srinivasa Enterprises. In his cross examination, it is elicited that the deceased is not an Employee of GHMC and that Ex.A12 shows that the deceased worked for 29 days and received Rs.8,460/- for that period. A perusal of Ex.A12 reveals that it is the extract of the Register maintained by Srinivasa Enterprises disclosing the salaries paid for the month of December 2014, wherein Ex.A12 reveals the name of the deceased at Serial No.51 and showing his Savings Account Number and also the salary paid to him i.e., Rs.8,468/- in the month of December. Thus, the contention of the counsel and the suggestion made to the witness-PW3 is proved to be false. b) Further, PW3 is authorised to depose on behalf of Srinivasa Enterprises under Ex.A11. The Salary Certificate issued under Ex.A6 discloses that the deceased-B. Prem Singh was working as a Driver in Transport Section at GHMC Kavadiguda Parking Yard and was earning a gross salary of Rs.10,160/- and after deductions his pay is disclosed as Rs.8,763/-, it appears in the statement of Srinivasa Enterprises. Thus, the petitioner could prove that the deceased used to work as driver under Srinivasa Enterprises in the Parking Yard at Kavadiguda and used to earn Rs.10,160/- as gross salary. Therefore, the same is taken into consideration, while computing the compensation. c) The age of the deceased was shown as ‘43’ years in Ex.A9/School Transfer Certificate and as per Ex.A4/Post Mortem Examination Report it is ‘40’ years. Thus it is held that he belongs to the age group between 40-43 years. As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, AIR 2017 SCC 5157 , 25% of the income needs to be added towards future prospects. As the deceased is aged 43 years, adding 25% towards future prospects i.e., 10,160+2,540 would give Rs.12,700/- per month, which comes to Rs.12,700/- x 12 = Rs.1,52,400/- per annum. d) Further, a deduction of 1/4 th is to be made to his income as there were five dependents, therefore, the income after deduction towards personal expenses would come up to Rs.1,14,300/- (Rs.1,52,400/- (-) Rs.38,100/-). e) 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 ] . e) 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 between 40-43 years, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘14’. Therefore, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.16,00,200/- (1,14,300 x 14). f) In the light of Pranay Sethi ’s case, Rs.15000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium have to be awarded and the said amounts should be enhanced by 10% every three years. g) 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, 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.40,000/-. Further an amount of Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,150/- towards Loss of Estate have to be awarded. h) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1. Compensation under the head of loss of dependency Rs.16,00,200/- 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.18,78,500/- i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioners are entitled is calculated as Rs.18,78,500/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,50,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 15. POINT NO.2: In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.18,78,500/- from that of Rs.5,50,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. It is further observed that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is 9% per annum, while this Court has been awarding 7.5% uniformly in all the cases. Therefore, the same rate of interest is awarded in this case also. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 16. It is further observed that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is 9% per annum, while this Court has been awarding 7.5% uniformly in all the cases. Therefore, the same rate of interest is awarded in this case also. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 16. POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimants is partly allowed modifying the Order and Decree dated 21.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,50,000/- to 18,78,500/- 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. Respondent No.2 is 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 appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.