THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.654 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 16.10.2006 in O.P.No.108 of 2006, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – II-Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, at Jagitial.

2. The petition vide O.P.No.108 of 2006 was filed by appellants/petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Bala Raja Ganga Rajam alias Bale Ganga Rajam, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 09.11.2005. The trial Court got examined P.W.1 on behalf of the appellants/petitioners and marked Exs.A1 to A8 on their behalf and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the respondents. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.2,31,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said Award, petitioners therein preferred the present appeal seeking to enhance the compensation amount granted by the trial Court.

3. Parties hereinafter referred to as petitioners and respondents, as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased was working as driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 15 U 1142. On 09.11.2005, when he was driving the tractor from Lothunur to Gollapalli, the tractor turned turtle. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries on his head and right shoulder and died on the spot.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners mainly contended that deceased was working as a tractor driver and earning Rs.3,300/- per month, but the trial Court erroneously taken the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month. The trial Court has also wrongly considered the age of the deceased as in the range of 25-30 years instead of 22 years and the amounts granted under various heads are also very meager. Therefore, requested the Court to enhance the compensation amount granted by the trial Court.

6. Perusal of the record shows that as per Ex.A2-Inquest report and Ex.A5-Postmortem report, the deceased was aged about 22 years. Therefore, this Court it reasonable to consider the age of the deceased as 22 years. The deceased was working as a tractor driver and earning Rs.3,300/- per month. Though, there was no evidence on record regarding the income of the deceased, the amount of Rs.1,500/- per month, as considered by the trial Court is very meager for the skilled labour. Therefore, considering age and occupation of the deceased, this Courts finds that it is just and reasonable to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.3,300/- per month and thus the annual income of the deceased would comes to Rs.39,600/-

(Rs.3,300/- X 12 = Rs.39,600/-).

7. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,1 if the deceased was married, 1/3^rd of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, as there are 3 dependents. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would comes to Rs.26,400/- per annum (Rs.39,600 – Rs.13,200= Rs.26,400/-) and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the dictum of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, [(2017) 16 SCC 680], held that the future prospects of income of

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121

the self-employed shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e., 22 years, 40% of the income i.e., Rs.10,560/- has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.36,960/- (Rs.26,400/- + Rs.10,560/- = Rs.36,960/-). This sum if multiplied with the multiplier 18 applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 22 years, it would come to Rs.6,65,280/- (Rs.36,960 x 18 = Rs.6,65,280/-). Thus, petitioners are entitled to Rs.6,65,280/- under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’.

8. Besides, appellants/petitioners are also entitled for compensation under ‘conventional heads’ as prescribed in the dictum