MACMA/2903/2015 of Smt.Jahangir Bee Vs Kadari Venkataiah on 31 December 2015

ORDER:

The claimants, six in number are no other thanwife, mother, two major sons and two unmarried majordaughters of the deceased by name Zaheeruddin,Junior Lineman in A.P.Transco with a salary ofRs.6,539/- p.m. by the time of his death under Ex.A6proved from PW.2 evidence aged about 53 years toretire within five years, who maintained the claim underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’)for Rs.8 lakhs against the owner and insurer of the autobearing No.AP 11 AG T/R 8074 of the motor accidentdated 29.09.2006 which speaks to the manner ofaccident due to rash and negligent driving of the driverof the auto where the deceased was travelling whichdashed against RTC bus for no fault of the bus driverfrom which the compensation and the tribunal awardedcompensation of Rs.2,38,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.vide award dated 25.11.2008 in O.P.No.432 of 2007, byimpugning the same maintained the appeal withcontentions in the grounds of appeal that the tribunalgravely erred in taking the net salary of Rs.4,950/-instead of gross salary of Rs.6,539/- and adopted a wrong multiplier ‘5.63’ instead of ‘11’ and also wentwrong in giving 1/3[rd] deduction instead of more than1/4[th] and interest awarded at 7.5% is low to enhance to9%, hence to allow the appeal, as prayed for.

2. The un-numbered appeal is filed with a delay of183 days and the reason assigned in the application forcondonation of delay is lack of funds in filing the appeal.

3. Whereas, it is the contention of the learnedcounsel for the 2[nd] respondent-insurer that even 1[st]respondent, owner of the auto remained exparte beforethe tribunal even impleaded and dismissed for default on19.12.2011, no way fatal to the maintainability of theappeal vide Meka Chakra Rao vs Yelubandi BabuRao @ Reddemma[[1]]and the same is recorded.

4. Heard and perused the material on record. Thedelay is condoned, subject to condition of not entitled tointerest on the enhanced amount till date but from today.

5. The appeal is taken up for hearing at request ofboth the parties.

6. The manner of accident is not in dispute. Thedeceased aged 53 years and was working as JuniorLineman in A.P.Transco with a salary of Rs.6,539/- p.m.

are also not in dispute and among the six claimants butfor two major sons, the remaining four are dependantssince the two major daughters are not married is also notin dispute.

7. Having regard to the above, though as per Rajesh Vs. Ranbir Singh[[2]]following Sarla Verma v.

Delhi Transport Corporation[[3]],where the dependantsare more than three, 1/4[th] deduction is permissible,thereby instead of 1/3[rd] deduction towards personalexpenses of the deceased is 1/4[th] herein and theprospective earnings though required to be taken intoconsideration from the expression in Rajesh(supra),here the remaining service left by the deceased is belowfive years and even any prospective increase of 15% tobe taken, the income tax deduction and compulsorydeductions out of the gross salary required to be taken.Hence, by compensating with the same even takenRs.6500/- p.m., if 1/4[th] deducted towards personalexpenses, it comes to Rs.4,875/-p.m. x 12 x 11(multiplier)= Rs.6,43,500/-. Apart from the same, theclaimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards funeralexpenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate andRs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium videRajesh(supra). Thus, in total it comes to Rs.7,78,500/-.

8. Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is partlyallowed by enhancing compensation from Rs.2,38,000/-to Rs.7,78,500/- but however the interest at 7.5% p.a. isawarded on the enhanced amount from today i.e.,31.12.2015 only. There is no order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shallstand closed.

Date:31-12-2015pab

_________________________

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

[1](2001 (1) ALT 495)[2]2013ACJ1403[3]2009 ACJ 1298(2001 (1) ALT 495)[2]2013ACJ1403[3]2009 ACJ 1298