THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.467 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasireddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri M. Ramakrishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Swati Guda, 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 compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.2632 of 2015, dated 04.05.2022.

3. The appellants/claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally on account of death of one N. Srinivas in a road traffic accident. On 17.10.2015, the deceased was walking by the side of the road near Christ the King Church at Ramanthapur of Uppal. Respondent No.1 who is the owner-cum-rider of Passion pro motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 29 AV 5834 proceeding from Uppal towards Ramanthapur has driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased who was proceeding by foot causing fatal head injury and other injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at Gandhi hospital. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation.

4. The claimants got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Respondent No.2 got marked Ex.B1 Certificate-cum-

policy schedule.

5. The Tribunal having examined the oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.12,04,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred.

6. In grounds of appeal, the claimants contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month as a labourer. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal has erroneously considered the age of the deceased as 38 years instead of 32 years as the claimant No.1 and deceased were of the same age group. Lastly, it is contended that the Tribunal has to award enhanced amount at 10% per annum after every three years under conventional heads.

7. During arguments in appeal, the learned counsel for the claimants contended that the deceased was working as a driver in VSR Transport service and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Janabai W D/o Dinkarrao Ghoppade and others v. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 512 Rs.9,000/- has to be considered as notional income. The age has to be taken at 27 years and future prospects have to be calculated. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 conceded that the claimants are entitled to consortium as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, 2(2018) 18 SCC 130 and that the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased rightly as 38 years.

8. As per FIR, the deceased was a private employee. The claimants did not lead evidence to prove avocation and income of the deceased and therefore, the Tribunal has taken Rs.6,000/- per month notional income. It is to be seen that the accident occurred in the year 2015. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance , an amount of Rs.4,500/- was taken as the notional income of labourer in the year 2004 and up to the year 2011, that being the case, the income of a labourer in the year 2015 will be around Rs.6,000/- per month. In the present case, the deceased was a private employee but not labourer as per the record. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimants argued that the notional income be taken at Rs.10,000/- can be taken as per Janabai case (1 supra). However, it is a point to be noted that the victim in the Janabai case was a resident of Mumbai