THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.179 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Kondadi Ajay kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants/claimants aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.899 of 2008, dated 27.07.2015, wherein, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,30,600/- as against the claimed amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of death of one K.Kalavathi in a road traffic accident.

3. On 11.12.2007 at 10.00 am, the deceased was standing by the side of the road talking with one Rapelly Srinivas infront of Kirana Shop at Keshapoor Village, a tractor bearing No.AP- 25-TR-AY-409 driven by it driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Grampanchayath side and lost his control over the tractor and dashed the deceased who was standing by the side of the road, due to which deceased fell down and the tractor ran over the deceased and the tractor went and hit to a compound wall. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple fractures and died on the spot. Consequently, the claimant Nos.1 who is husband and the claimant Nos.2 and 3 who are children of the deceased have filed claim petition seeking compensation jointly and severally from the respondent No.1- owner of crime vehicle, respondent No.2-insurer of the crime vehicle.

4. The claimant No.1 got himself examined as PW1 and an eye witness was examined as PW2 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A5. In response, on behalf of respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and exhibited Ex.B1 to B9 and Exs.X1 and X2.

5. On the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,30,600/- with interest at 6% per annum and the same is subject matter of the present appeal.

6. In grounds of appeal, the claimants contended that the income of the deceased was Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month by doing agriculture and rearing buffaloes and she was also looking after the affairs of the house. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and considering the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month on the basis of Lata Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others¹ is erroneous. In case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance², the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the monthly income of a daily wage labourer at Rs.4,500/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased ought to have been taken at Rs.6,000/- per month and interest ought to have been awarded at 9% per annum. Hence, the appeal.

7. During arguments in appeal, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased meagerly at Rs.3,000/- per month when the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken the income of labourer at Rs.4,500/- per month in Ramachandrappa’s case (2 supra) disposed of in the year 2011. Apart from being an agriculturist, the income of the deceased as house wife was not taken into consideration and therefore, there is an error in awarding the compensation. Lastly, the counsel sought increase in the percentage of interest to be awarded on the compensation awarded.

8. Learned counsel for respondents argued that the tribunal has awarded the compensation which is just and fair but conceded that the legal ratio laid down in National Insurance

(2001) 8 SCC 197

(2011) 13 SCC 236

Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017(6) 170 (SC) needs to be applied in the present case.

9. As per the contentions of the charge sheet, the deceased was shown as doing agricultural work. Lastly, in the inquest report also it was shown as the deceased was doing agricultural work. As per Ramachandrappa’s case (2 supra), the income of the deceased has to be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. In addition, Rs.2,000/- is added towards services rendered by the decea