THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.500 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Srikanth, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company and perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.3134 of

2017, dated 12.12.2022.

3. The appellants/claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of death of one T. Vinay Kumar in a road traffic accident. The claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents and claimant No.3 is the brother of the deceased. On 07.01.2017 at 1900 hours, the deceased was proceeding by walk in front of Hero Honda showroom near L.B.Nagar. At that time, one bus bearing No.AP 04 W8057 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased causing fatal injuries, which resulted in his death while undergoing treatment. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants preferred claim petition seeking compensation.

4. The claimants got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12 and Exs.X1 and X2. The respondent No.2 got marked Ex.B1 Copy of Insurance policy of the offending vehicle.

5. Upon examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.11,67,960/- with interest at 9% per annum. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 were directed to deposit the compensation amount jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

6. The singular ground on which the appeal is filed is that the trial Court has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,800/- per month as a mechanic and that the same has to be taken at Rs.22,000/ per month. For said purpose, the claimants relied upon the oral evidence of PW3 and documents Ex.X1 and X2. The evidence of PW3 is that the deceased was working as a Diesel mechanic and was paid Rs.6,961/- as apprentice. The deceased died after working for four months. Further, it is deposed that in case the deceased was alive, he would have been paid Rs.22,000/- per month. Ex.X1 is the authorization letter and Ex.X2 is salary particulars of the deceased from July, 2017 to October, 2017.

There is convincing evidence in the form of Ex.X2 to prove income of the deceased at Rs.6,961/- per month. However, mere oral evidence about the probability of the deceased earning Rs.22,000/- per month upon completion of apprenticeship cannot be considered. For that matter, any individual due to providence may get opportunity to earn at more than what they have been earning as on the date of accident. However, such probabilities cannot be taken into consideration.

7. The M.V.Act is meant for providing relief to the victims of accident by putting them on a position where they were prior to the accident. In the instant case, the position of the deceased at the time of accident is the earnings of the deceased at Rs.6,931/- per month but not Rs.22,000/-. Therefore, the contention of the claimants cannot be considered for computing the compensation taking the income at Rs.22,000/- per month.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance company contended that there is no income proof and that the compensation has to be computed on the basis of judgment of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance¹ by taking the income at Rs.4,500/- per month.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is not sustainable as the claimants have examined PW3 and have marked Ex.X2 to prove the income of the deceased at Rs.6,931/- per month. Since the income of the deceased is proven, the notional income of the deceased as per Ramachandrappa’s case (stated supra) cannot be considered. There are no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. As such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is dismissed.

Miscellaneous P