THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY MACMA No.269 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.839 of 2014, dated 04.10.2018. By the said order, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Smt. K. Mallamma.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.07.2008 at about 4.45 p.m., the deceased, Smt. K. Mallamma, was selling vegetables near Gandhi Statue, Narsappaguda Village and at that time, a Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-28-AB-1557, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against her and two other women standing by the roadside. Due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death on the way to the hospital at Shadnagar. A case in Crime No.148 of 2008 was registered by the Kothur Police against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant filed the aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and i.e., owner of the crime vehicle and the Insurance Company, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex parte and the respondent No.2–insurance company filed counter affidavit and contested the O.P. The Tribunal, after full-fledged enquiry, while holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo, awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the deceased was aged about 45 years, hale and healthy, and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as a vegetable vendor, and that her entire earnings were being utilised for the maintenance of the family consisting of her husband and three sons. It is contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum, though PW.1 had clearly deposed about the earnings of the deceased and no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to take note of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, 2025 INSC 673., wherein it was held that the income of an unskilled worker for the year 2004 shall be Rs.4,500/- per month with an increment of Rs.500/- per month for each successive year. Taking the accident year herein as 2008, the learned counsel submits that the income ought to have been fixed

at Rs.6,500/- per month. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to award future prospects as mandated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi2 and also granted meagre amounts under the conventional heads and ultimately, prayed to enhance the compensation.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award of the Tribunal and contended that the claim of Rs.12,000/- per month was not supported by any documentary evidence and therefore the Tribunal rightly adopted notional income. It is further contended that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference.

5. This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The deceased was 45 years old at the time of the accident. The Tribunal adopted a notional annual income of Rs.30,000/-, which is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique’s case (supra). As per the said decision, the income of Rs.4,500/- fixed for the year 2004 is required to be increased by Rs.500/- per month for every subsequent year. Applying the said formula for the accident year 2008, the income of the deceased ought to have been fixed at Rs.6,500/- per month.

(2017) 16 SCC 680

6. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme