Telangana High Court
MACMA/3476/2005 of Thatikayala Mallikamba Vs P. Srihari on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3476 OF 2005 Dated: 30-12-2010 Between: Thatikayala Mallikamba and others ... APPELLANTS AND P.Srihari and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3476 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Dated: 30-12-2010
Between:
Thatikayala Mallikamba and others
AND
... APPELLANTS
P.Srihari and another
... RESPONDENTS
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:
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988is directed against the order dated 08-04-2003 in M.V.O.P No. 754 of2000 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Court, Warangal.
The claimants are the appellants. They filed the said O.Pclaiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of Komuraiah inan accident. The first appellant is the wife and appellants 2 and 3 arethe children of the deceased. On 25.07.2000, at about 11.30 P.M.,while the deceased along with others were sitting near the Valkanisingshop at Hunter Road, the lorry bearing No. ADM 1326 came in a rashand negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. As a result ofthe same, the deceased died on the spot. It is the case of theappellants that the deceased was a lorry driver and earning Rs.3,000/-per month.
The first respondent remained ex parte before the lowerTribunal. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed thecounter denying all the material allegations.
On the strength of the pleadings, the lower Tribunal framed theissues as to whether the accident was due to rash and negligentdriving of the driver of the vehicle and whether the appellants are legalheirs and dependents upon the deceased and are entitled to claimcompensation, if so, to what amount and from whom and to what reliefthey are entitled to.
On behalf of the appellants, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked and on behalf of the respondents no oraland documentary evidence was adduced.
On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidenceavailable on record, the lower Tribunal answered first and secondissues in favour of the appellants and with regard to the third issue, thelower Tribunal awarded Rs.1,45,200/- towards compensation. Beingdissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the lowerTribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellants.
The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lowerTribunal has taken only Rs.1,200/- per month as the earnings of thedeceased though Ex.A7 issued by the employer of the deceasedshows that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month and assuch, the lower Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration Ex.A7while fixing the earnings of the deceased.
The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Companycontends that the compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal is quitereasonable and needs no interference.
There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving bythe driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of thedeceased, the appellants claimed that the deceased was earningRs.3,000/- per month and in the absence of any contra evidenceproduced by the respondents, it can be notionally taken as Rs.2,500/-per month and in my view, the same would meet the ends of justice. InSarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[[1]], the Supreme Courtobserved that where the deceased was married, the deduction towardspersonal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third(1/3[rd]) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4[th]) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6and one-fifth (1/5[th]) where the number of dependent family membersexceed six. Hence, after deducting one-third amount as per thejudgment of the Supreme Court in the said case, loss of earnings
would come to Rs.20,000/- per annum (Rs.2,500X12x2/3). Therelevant multiplier for the age of 40 years as per Sarla Verma’s case (1supra) is 15 and if the same is applied, loss of earnings comes toRs.3,00,000 (Rs.20,000X15). A further sum of Rs.10,000/- is grantedtowards loss of consortium and Rs.10,000/- is granted towards loss ofestate. Thus, the total amount of compensation to which theappellants are entitled to comes to Rs.3,20,000/-, but since theappellants have claimed Rs.3,00,000/-, their claim is restricted toRs.3,00,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal isenhanced from Rs.1,45,200/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. The enhanced amountshall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition tillrealisation.
With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal isallowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
30-12-2010lvl
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
Dated: 30-12-2010