Telangana High Court
MACMA/173/2007 of P.Lavanya Vs K.Mohan Reddy on 30 December 2014
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.173 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: The Claimants 5 in number no other than the wife, three minor children and father of the deceased by name P.Sudhakar Goud, aged about 32 years as per the Ex.A.5 postmortem report in the claim maintained under Section 166 of the M.V.Act
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAOM.A.C.M.A.No.173 OF 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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 5 in number no other than the wife, three minorchildren and father of the deceased by name P.Sudhakar Goud, agedabout 32 years as per the Ex.A.5 postmortem report in the claimmaintained under Section 166 of the M.V.Act (for short, ‘the Act’), forthe claim of Rs.6,00,000/- against the owner and Insurer of the crimevehicle TATA SUMO bearing No.AP09 X 2402 covered by Ex.B.1policy, since awarded by the tribunal of Rs.4,17,500/- with interest at7.5% p.a. in O.P.No.1811 of 2003 on the file of the learned Chairmanof the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-IV AdditionalMetropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge,Hyderabad, (for short, ‘Tribunal’), by its award dated 28.07.2006,preferred the appeal with the contentions in the grounds of appeal thatthe compensation awarded by the tribunal is utterly low and themultiplier applied is wrong and the compensation awarded is withoutappreciating the evidence on record properly and hence, to allow theappeal by setting aside the award by granting the compensation asprayed for. The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the samein the course of the hearing.
2. Whereas, it is the contention of the 2[nd] respondent-Insurer (fromthe 1[st] respondent even remained ex-parte before the tribunal did notchoose to contest and thereby taken as heard to decide on merits) thatthe award of the tribunal holds good and for this Court while sitting inthe appeal there is nothing to interfere and hence to dismiss theappeal.
3. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter arereferred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of conveniencein the appeal.
4). Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal in theO.P.No.1811 of 2003 dated 28.07.2006 is utterly low andunjust and requires interference by this Court while sitting inappeal and if so, with what compensation, with what rate ofinterest and with what observations?O.P.No.1811 of 2003 dated 28.07.2006 is utterly low andunjust and requires interference by this Court while sitting inappeal and if so, with what compensation, with what rate ofinterest and with what observations?
2. To what result?
Point No.1:
5. There is no dispute on the manner of accident or for theliability of the Insurer to cover the risk indemnifying the owner of thecrime vehicle but for quantum. Now coming to the quantum, thetribunal has estimated earnings of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- permonth not believing the so called avocation of the deceased as toddytapper, for the certificate issued by the so called President of the ToddyTappers Cooperative Society has no basis. Even taken as a dailywage earner with no fixed avocation or regular assurance of work, asper the expression of Apex Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State ofBihar[[1]]it can reasonably be estimated at Rs.3,000/- p.m. Since theaccident taken place 2 years after the above expression, it can betaken at Rs.3,200/-p.m. The claimants are 5 in number. As per SarlaVerma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[[2]], if 1/4[th] deducted towardspersonal expenses, it comes to Rs.2400/-p.m. x 12 x 16(multiplier) istaken as per Sarla Verma(supra) for a person aged 32 years =Rs.4,60,000/- + Rs.1,65,000/-( Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium forthe 1[st] petitioner-wife, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses,Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards care andguidance to the three minor children) as per as per Rajesh v. Ranabir3]Singh[[], in all it comes to Rs.6,25,800/- for which the claimants areentitled and confirming the rate of interest at 7.5%p.a. as awarded bythe tribunal. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
POINT No.-2:
POINT No.-2:
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the quantumof compensation from Rs.4,17,500/- to Rs. 6,25,800/- with interest at7½% p.a. from the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit withnotice. The claimants are directed to pay deficit Court fee onRs.26,000/-before the tribunal. The respondents 1 and 2 (owner andInsurer of the crime vehicle), are directed to deposit the amountenhanced herein(including the earlier amount of Rs.4,17,500/- if notdeposited) before the tribunal within one month from date of receipt ofthe appeal judgment. In all the other respects the award of the tribunalholds good. It is made clear that without payment of deficit Court fee,the claimants are not entitled to execute the award before the tribunal.On such deposit or execution and recovery, the claimants arepermitted to withdraw the same. There is no order as to costs in theappeal. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thisappeal shall stand closed.
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 30.12.2014
VVR
[1](2001) 8 SCC 197=AIR 2001 (SC) 3218[2]2009 ACJ 1298[3]2013 ACJ 1403=(4)ALT-35(SC)