Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Vangapalli Muninder Rao & another – Appellants
Versus
Bhukya Rajanna & another – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A. No.2166 OF 2006
Decided On : 03-03-2020
Claim Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 166 Act – Accident – Compensation Claim – Claim Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Section 166 Act – Accident – Compensation Claim – Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,23,460/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty three thousand four hundred and sixty only), after deducting an amount of Rs.50,000/- claimed under no fault liability, towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) laid by the appellants - appellants are entitled to Rs.10,45,860 and rounding it off to Rs.10,46,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs forty six thousand only) as compensation – Held, Entire evidence, as discussed supra, the appellants in the present case are entitled for compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for Rs.20,000/- as against the claim of Rs.10,000/- sought by the appellants - the accident had occurred in the year 2009, whereas the accident in the case on hand had occurred in the year 2003. Therefore, the appellants are entitled the interest only @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization instead of 6% granted by the Tribunal - The compensation amount shall be apportioned between the appellants - claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Similarly, Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
Facts of the case:
Accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 4821 driven by respondent No.1 belongs to respondent No.2. Respondents did not prefer any appeal challenging the said finding and, therefore, the finding with regard to occurrence of accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 has attained finality.
Finding of the Court:
Entire evidence, as discussed supra, the appellants in the present case are entitled for compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for Rs.20,000/- as against the claim of Rs.10,000/- sought by the appellants - The accident had occurred in the year 2009, whereas the accident in the case on hand had occurred in the year 2003. Therefore, the appellants are entitled the interest only @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization instead of 6% granted by the Tribunal - The compensation amount shall be apportioned between the appellants - claimants in the same proportion in which original compensation amounts were directed to be apportioned by the Tribunal. The claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Similarly, Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
Result : Allowed
JUDGMENT :
Assailing the order and decree dated 26.06.2006 in O.P. No.501 of 2005 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the appellants filed the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,23,460/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty three thousand four hundred and sixty only), after deducting an amount of Rs.50,000/- claimed under no fault liability, towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) laid by the appellants.
3. Heard Mr. Kandi Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A. Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for T.S.R.T.C. appearing on behalf of respondent No.2
4. It is relevant to note that on consideration of the entire evidence, the Tribunal gave a specific finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 4821 driven by respondent No.1 belongs to respondent No.2. Respondents did not prefer any appeal challenging the said finding and, therefore, the finding with regard to occurrence of accident on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 has attained finality.
5. The only issue that falls for consideration before this Court is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
6. It is not in dispute that appellant No.1 is the husband and appellant No.2 is daughter of the deceased. According to the appellants, the deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of accident and used to do beedi work and tailoring. According to them, the deceased used to earn a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, the appellants did not file any document in proof of the age of the deceased as 30 years. In Ex.A3 - postmortem examination report, age of the deceased is mentioned as 35 years and in Ex.A7 - death certificate, her age is mentioned as 30 years. However, this Court is of the considered view that the age of the deceased mentioned in Ex.A3 - postmortem examination report shall be considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also categorically held that in the absence of any documentary evidence in proof of age of the deceased, the age mentioned in the post-mortem examination report shall be considered. In view of the same, the age of the deceased shall be considered as 35 years as mentioned in Ex.A3 - postmortem examination report.
7. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deceased used to do beedi work and tailoring work and used to earn an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. In proof of the same, the appellants filed Ex.A10 - salary certificate and examined PW.3 and filed Exs.A11, copy of registration certificate of PW.3 and A12, Labour License of PW.3 to prove the monthly earning capacity of the deceased. However, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the accident had occurred on 31.12.2003. The learned counsel for the appellants by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmidhar Nayak v. Jugal Kishore Behera, 2018 (2) ALD 80 (SC) would contend that the Apex Court considered the monthly earning capacity of a house-hold as Rs.4,500/-. By relying upon decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 13 SCC 236 wherein the monthly earning capacity of the deceased coolie was considered as Rs.4,500/-, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that though the appellants claimed the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- as the amount of Rs.4,500/- per month can be considered as monthly earnings since in the present case the deceased was doing tailoring work as well as beedi work.
8. On perusal o
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
