Telangana High Court
MACMA/2743/2009 of Linga Rama Kottamma Vs D. Brahmmaiah on 30 December 2015
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.2743 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The claimants are wife and major son of the deceased by name, L.Venkateswarlu, aged 70 years, died in motor accident dated 03.11.2005, who maintained the claim under Section 163- A of the Motor Vehicles Act(for short ‘ the
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAOM.A.C.M.A. No.2743 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
The claimants are wife and major son of the deceased byname, L.Venkateswarlu, aged 70 years, died in motor accident dated03.11.2005, who maintained the claim under Section 163-A of theMotor Vehicles Act(for short ‘the Act’) for compensation ofRs.2,00,000/- against owner and insurer of auto bearing No.AP 07W5469, while the deceased and others were traveling from the autoturned turtle, from first claimant died pending claim petition andsecond claimant recorded as sole legal representative being majorson, did not dependant being Class-I heir otherwise entitled to theentire compensation, from what the tribunal awarded in O.P.No.325of 2006 dated 08.09.2008 of Rs.12,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.impugned as utterly low in the appeal.
2. The 1[st] respondent remained exparte before the tribunaland even not served, no way fatal to the maintainability of appealbeing not necessary party as endorsed.3.Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for theinsurer/2[nd] respondent that the second claimant is not a dependantand first claimant, wife of the deceased also died and the tribunal isright in awarding compensation of Rs.12,000/- and for this Courtwhile sitting in appeal, there is nothing to interfere, hence to dismissthe appeal.
4. Heard and perused the material on record.
5. The claim filed under Section 163-A and Schedule-II
governs the claim as per the structured formula, for a person aged 70years, the multiplier applicable is ‘5’. In the absence of proof ofearnings, the minimum to be taken as per Schedule II of the Motorvehicles Act of Rs.15,000/- p.a. to be read as Rs.30,000/- p.a. videKishan Gopal Vs Lala[[1]].Thus, the earnings of the deceased canbe taken at Rs.30,000/- p.a. and if 1/3[rd] is deducted towardspersonal expenses of the deceased, it comes to Rs.20,000/- andloss of dependency comes at Rs.20,000/-x5 (the multiplierapplicable from the age of the deceased as per Schedule II of the Actis ‘5’ ) =Rs.1,00,000/-. Apart from it, the claimant is entitled toRs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses (as per Schedule II of the Act). Thus, in total it comes to Rs.1,02,000/-.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancingcompensation from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.1,02,000/- with interest at 7.5%from the date of claim petition till realization. There is no order as tocosts.
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Date:30-12-2015pab
_________________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
[1]2014(1)SCC-244)2014(1)SCC-244)