THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.3460 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 12.03.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.221 of 2008, passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act – cum – V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy.

2. The petition vide M.V.O.P.No.221 of 2008 was filed by appellants/petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased G.Anjaneyulu, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.02.2008. The trial Court got examined P.W.1 on behalf of the appellants/petitioners and marked Exs.A1 to A8 on their behalf. R.W.1 was examined on behalf of the respondents and marked Ex.B1 to B4 on their behalf. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.3,34,000/- 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 on 25.02.2008 at about 9:00 PM, the deceased along with his wife were proceeding on a Scooter bearing No.AP 13 A 6497, towards Ameenpur village. However, at Shankarpally Tar Road near Swagruha Meadows, a lorry bearing No.AP 12 T 6004, was parked on the road without any indicator. As it was night time, the deceased Anjaneyulu, could not see the stationed lorry and dashed to it. As a result, the deceased died on the spot and the pillion rider was shifted to Gandhi Hospital.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners mainly contended that the trial Court ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.7,500/- per month, as he was self- employed and running a snack shop. The multiplier was also wrongly considered by the trial Court 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.A7- Postmortem examination report, the deceased was aged about 45 years. P.W.1 in her evidence stated that deceased was doing snack business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but she has not adduced any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited,, [(2011) 13 SCC 236] considering age and occupation of the injured, this Courts finds that it is just and reasonable to consider the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month and thus the annual income of the deceased would comes to Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500/- X 12 = Rs.54,000/-).

7. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in dictum of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation,, [(2009) 6 SCC 121] if the deceased was married, 1/4^th of his income has to be deducted towards his personal expenses, as there are 5 dependents. Thus, the annual income of the deceased after deducting personal expenses would comes to Rs.40,500/- per annum (Rs.54,000 – Rs.13,500= Rs.40,500/-) 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 the self-employed shall also be included in determination of the compensation. Thus, considering the age of the deceased i.e., 45 years, 25% of the income i.e., Rs.10,125/- has to be added towards future prospects and thus the amount would become Rs.50,625/- (Rs.40,500/- + Rs.10,125/- = Rs.50,625/-). This sum if multiplied with the multiplier 14 applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 45 years, it would come to Rs.7,08,750/- (Rs.50,625 x 14 = Rs.7,08,750/-). Thus, petitioners are entitled to Rs.7,08,750/- under the head ‘Loss of Dependency’.

8.