AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal is arising out of the order dated 18.06.2018, in MVOP.No.1772 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the OP.
The appeal is filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation. The O.P. is filed by the claimants before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with costs and interest for the death of the deceased K. Tummalesham in the accident occurred on 26.02.2017 at about 5.00 p.m. at Barakhanalu. The claimants in the O.P. are the wife and children of the deceased. A Memo is filed before this Court stating that the Appellant No.1 died on 22.12.2018 and the legal representatives are already on record i.e. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 and the said Memo was recorded.
The appeal is filed disputing about the less quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. So, the appreciation would be only with regard to that aspect.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Sweeper and doing Kirana business and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. It is urged by the learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal has not considered the said aspect and erred in fixing the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further contended that the income of the deceased has to be considered as Rs.10,000/- per month or it has to be fixed at least as Rs.6,500/- per month, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Syed Sadiq & others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 ACJ 627.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/RTC contended that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts and awarded just compensation to the claimants, and therefore, prayed to confirm the orders of the Tribunal by dismissing the appeal.
On perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has awarded the following amounts under different heads;
1.
Loss of dependency
Rs.4,84,000/-
2.
Consortium to the wife
Rs.40,000/-
3.
Funeral expenses
Rs.10,000/-
4.
Loss of love and affection
Rs.15,000/-
5.
Transportation
Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL
Rs.5,64,000/-
On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that Ex.A-6 are the receipts dated 24.02.2017 issued by the Junior Assistant of Sri Edupayala Vanadurga Bhavani Devasthanam, Medak on receiving tax of Rs.500/- from the deceased for running sugarcane business. But, the said Junior Assistant of the temple was not examined before the Tribunal for the reasons best known to the claimants. The recitals of Ex.A-6 disclose that the deceased used to pay tax of Rs.500/- to the Devasthanam, but contrary to that, the evidence of PW-2 disclose that the deceased used to work as a Sweeper and earn Rs.10,000/- and another Rs.20,000/- by doing kirana business, but no documents are filed to that effect before the Tribunal, therefore, the Tribunal have considered the income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month.
Admittedly, Ex.A-6 reveal that the deceased used to run sugarcane business and pay tax to the Devasthanam. Taking into consideration the proposition laid in the case of Syed Sadiq’s case (1 supra), an amount of Rs.6,500/- per month can be fixed as the income of the deceased even in the absence of proper documentary evidence.
Apart from that, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that though the wife of the deceased died, she is also entitled for compensation under the conventional head and relied on the judgment in Paramjith Kaur & others v. Gurdev Singh & others 2021 ACJ 1945, wherein, their Lordships have held as under :
“By applying the dictum as laid down in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Smt. Somwati and others 2020 (4) PLR 1, both the parents of the deceased Balbir Singh are held entitled to a filial consortium of Rs.40,000/-each. The submission advanced by counsel for the insurance company that since parents of the deceased have already expired as such the amount under the head of loss of consortium cannot be awarded is found to be misconceived and not well founded. Upon the death of Balbir Singh in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.10.2000, not only the widow and minor children but even the parents had filed the claim petition.”
As per the above citation, the family members of the deceased who died subsequent to the death of the deceased, are also entitled for consortium as the claim which already stood crystalised on the date of accident cannot be negated by the subsequent death of the parties. Taking into consideration the above said ratio, the 1st appellant who is no more, is also entitled for consortium.
Admittedly, the deceased was aged about 55 years as on the date of accident. As discussed above, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.6,500/-, and thus, the annual income comes to Rs.78,000/-. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier applicable is ‘11’ for the age group of 51 to 55 years. If 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of deceased, his contribution to the family would come to Rs.52,000/-(Rs.78,000 - Rs.26,000). If 10% is added towards future prospects, it would come to Rs.57,200/- (Rs.52,000 + 5,200). If the multiplier ‘11’ is applied, it would come to Rs.6,29,200/- (Rs.57,200 X 11). Therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs.6,29,200/- towards loss of dependency.
Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the following heads;
1.
Loss of dependency
Rs.6,29,200/-
2.
Funeral expenses
Rs.15,000/-
3.
Consortium (Rs.40,000/- each for 3 claimants)
Rs.1,20,000/-
4.
Loss of estate
Rs.15,000/-
TOTAL
Rs.7,79,200/-
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of, granting a total compensation of Rs.7,79,200/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and respondents 1 and 2 (RTC) are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of this order. As the 1st claimant is no more, claimant Nos.2 and 3, who are the children of the deceased, are equally entitled for the said compensation and they are permitted to withdraw their respective shares with costs and interest, as the accident occurred in the year 2017.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.