AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT - MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM = The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence and material available on record, granted compensation of Rs.5,56,000/- as against the claim of Rs.11,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount in the Court and apportioned the same among the petitioners. -The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation. While the petitioners sought for enhancement of compensation, the respondents Corporation contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant. On consideration of the order passed by the Tribunal, it does not appear that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive or exorbitant, except the rate of interest granted @ 9% per annum ;since the rate of interest appears to be on higher side, following the decision of the Apex Court in DHARAMPAL AND OTHERS Vs. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , this Court feels it appropriate to award interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. = the appeal filed by the respondents Corporation is partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the compensation amount.

http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14374&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.189 OF 2006 and batch
06-10-2017
Naseemunnisa Begum and others. Appellants
Puligadda Narasimha and others. . Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Smt. S. Vani
Counsel for the respondents: Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy
SC for APSRTC
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1.MANU/SC/7680/2008
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A. Nos.189 and 2667 of 2006
COMMON JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.07.2005 in
O.P.No.2398 of 2002 passed by the II Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, granting compensation of
Rs.5,56,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.11,00,000/-, with
interest @ 9% per annum for the death of the deceased Mirza
Yousuf Baig in a motor accident that occurred on 12.01.2002
with APSRTC Bus bearing No.AAZ 4659, while the petitioners
in the aforesaid O.P. filed MACMA.No.189 of 2006 seeking
enhancement of compensation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 A.P.
State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity the
Corporation) in the O.P. filed MACMA.No.2667 of 2006
seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 11.07.2005 as
the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal is highly
excessive and exorbitant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
they were arrayed in O.P.No.2398 of 2002 before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are
widow, son and father of the deceased Mirza Yousuf Baig.
They filed the aforesaid O.P.No.2398 of 2002 claiming
compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- stating that on 12.01.2002
while the deceased Mirza Yousuf Baig was standing in
Sanathnagar Bus Stand and waiting for bus, suddenly APSRTC
Bus bearing No.AAZ 4659 coming from SBH, proceeding
towards Sanathnagar Bus Stand, came in high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased and others. As
a result, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on
the spot.
4. Respondent No.1, who is the driver of the offending Bus
set exparte and respondent Nos.2 and 3 Corporation filed
counter denying its liability. The Tribunal, on consideration of
the evidence and material available on record, granted
compensation of Rs.5,56,000/- as against the claim of
Rs.11,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
the petition till the date of deposit of the amount in the Court
and apportioned the same among the petitioners. Challenging
the same, while the petitioners filed appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation, the respondents Corporation
filed appeal contending that the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and exorbitant.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants in both the appeals and perused the order under
challenge and also the evidence on record.
6. The only point that arises for consideration in these
appeals is, whether the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is highly excessive.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the facts of the case.
The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of
compensation. While the petitioners sought for enhancement of
compensation, the respondents Corporation contends that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive
and exorbitant. On consideration of the order passed by the
Tribunal, it does not appear that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is highly excessive or exorbitant, except the rate of
interest granted @ 9% per annum.
8. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter,
since the rate of interest appears to be on higher side, following
the decision of the Apex Court in DHARAMPAL AND OTHERS
Vs. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , this
Court feels it appropriate to award interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount.
9. In the result, while confirming the amount of
compensation granted by the Tribunal at Rs.5,56,000/-, the
appeal filed by the petitioners is dismissed and the appeal filed
by the respondents Corporation is partly allowed by reducing
the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date
of petition till the date of deposit of the compensation amount.
In all other aspects, the order passed by the Tribunal shall
remain unaltered. No order as to costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in
these appeals shall stand closed.
______________________________
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J
06.10.2017

AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT - MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM= Disability Certificate was issued 2 years 2 months after the accident is not a factor to discard/disbelief - entitled to compensation for 50% disability cannot be countenanced in view of the finding of the Tribunal that the Disability Certificate was issued 2 years 2 months after the accident. However, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation towards the injuries suffered by him - Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is enhanced as mentioned below: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compensation towards Amount awarded Amount awarded by the Tribunal by this Court Rs. Rs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Injuries 20,000.00 40,000.00 2. Pain & suffering 5,000.00 25,000.00 3. Medical & extra-nourishment 2,768.00 5,000.00 4. Transport expenses 500.00 1,000.00 5. Damage to clothing 500.00 500.00 ------------- ------------ Rounded off total : 29,000.00 71,500.00 ------------- ------------ 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.29,000/- to Rs.71,500/- (Rupees seventy one thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents-Corporation is directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation. No order as to costs.

http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14373&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A.No.652 OF 2006
05-10-2017
Shaik Mahaboob Appellant
A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Main Road, Nizamabad and another. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant :Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy
Counsel for the respondents: Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, SC
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

M.A.C.M.A. No.652 of 2006

JUDGMENT :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act), is preferred by
the appellantpetitioner aggrieved by the judgment and decree
dated 17.10.2005 in O.P.No.599 of 2000 passed by the
Chairman, I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Nizamabad (for brevity the Tribunal), awarding compensation
of Rs.29,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- made
under Section 166 of the Act, for the injuries sustained by him
in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.11.1999.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.11.1999 at
about 2.00 p.m., while the appellant and others were going in a
Jeep bearing No.AP 25T 7546 towards Mosra Village and when
they reached near Gandhinagar, Nizamabad, the RTC Bus
bearing No.AP 9Z 9113 belonging to the respondents-A.P. State
Road Transport Corporation (for brevity the Corporation)
came from behind the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner and
at high speed and dashed against the said Jeep, due to which
the appellant received fracture injury to his right leg and ankle
and injuries on both hands and head and multiple and
grievous injuries to all over the body, while the other inmates of
the Jeep received multiple and grievous injuries. Immediately,
the appellant was shifted to Government Headquarters
Hospital, Nizamabad, for treatment and from there to a Private
Hospital for further treatment. The appellant laid a claim for
Rs.1,00,000/- against the respondents-Corporation for the
injuries sustained by him in the said accident.
3. The respondents-Corporation contested the said claim
stating that the appellant has not filed any injury or permanent
disability certificate in support of his claim and that the claim
is excessive and highly exorbitant.
4. On consideration of the rival contentions and the
documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to A.7 filed on behalf of
the appellant, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of
Rs.29,000/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit with a further direction to
deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of award.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-petitioner has filed the
present appeal.
5. Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant-petitioner, as well as Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation and
perused the material and evidence available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that
the Tribunal has not considered the permanent disability
suffered by the appellant at 50% as per Ex.A.4 Disability
Certificate. He further submitted that though the appellant filed
Exs.A.3 to A.5 and A.7, which are Wound Certificate, Disability
Certificate, Discharge Certificate and X-Ray film, respectively,
the Tribunal did not consider the said documents and
permanent disability sustained by the appellant at 50% for
awarding compensation. The learned counsel also submits that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries
sustained by the appellant is inadequate.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents-Corporation submits that the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.20,000/- for 2 grievous injuries and two simple
injuries. He would further submit that the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and that it
disbelieved Ex.A.4 - Disability Certificate as it was issued 2
years 2 months after the accident had occurred and, therefore,
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and
adequate.
8. On consideration of the rival contentions of the respective
parties and the material on record, the only point that arises
for consideration in this appeal is, whether the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant that
the appellant is entitled to compensation for 50% disability
cannot be countenanced in view of the finding of the Tribunal
that the Disability Certificate was issued 2 years 2 months after
the accident. However, the appellant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation towards the injuries suffered by
him. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances
and the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered
view that the appellant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation under the head pain and suffering.
10. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
various heads is enhanced as mentioned below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation towards Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
Rs. Rs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Injuries 20,000.00 40,000.00
2. Pain & suffering 5,000.00 25,000.00
3. Medical & extra-nourishment 2,768.00 5,000.00
4. Transport expenses 500.00 1,000.00
5. Damage to clothing 500.00 500.00
------------- ------------
Rounded off total : 29,000.00 71,500.00
------------- ------------



11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in
part, enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.29,000/- to Rs.71,500/- (Rupees seventy one
thousand five hundred only) with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The
respondents-Corporation is directed to deposit the
compensation amount within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the
appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of
compensation. No order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
05.10.2017.

AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT - MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM = Since the petitioner sustained grievous injury i.e., left femur, he might have bed ridden for a longer period. It is pertinent to note that the appellant is working as a private Typist and he has suffered a grievous injury to his left femur. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. Further, the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for not considering the bunch of Medical Bills worth Rs.39,000/- filed by the appellant, except stating that the Medical Officer was not examined. The reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in awarding Rs.21,000/- as against the Medical Bills of worth Rs.39,000/- appears to be arbitrary. I do not see any valid reason in disallowing the said Medical Bills, for the reason that even as per the finding of the Tribunal, the appellant had received a grievous injury to his left femur and was bed-ridden for about six months. Therefore, the Medical Bills worth Rs.39,000/- is granted. 9. Further, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the notional income of the appellant as Rs.1,500/- per month, which appears to be on lower side. Therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month and for 6 months, it comes to Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings. 10. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is now enhanced as mentioned below: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compensation towards Amount awarded Amount awarded by the Tribunal by this Court Rs. Rs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Pain and suffering 5,000.00 30,000.00 2. Medical Bills 21,000.00 39,000.00 3. Loss of earnings for 9,000.00 18,000.00 six months ------------- ------------ TOTAL : 35,000.00 87,000.00 ------------- ------------ 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.87,000/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount also from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation and they are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation. No order as to costs.

http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14377&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A.No.266 OF 2006
05-10-2017
Yedama Laxma Reddy Appellant
Panasa Buchaiah and another Respondents
Counsel for the appellant:Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav
Counsel for the respondents : Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam,
SC for R.2
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

M.A.C.M.A. No.266 of 2006

JUDGMENT :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act), is preferred by
the appellant-petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation
challenging the order and decree dated 25.10.2004 in
O.P.No.159 of 2004 (old O.P.No.1477 of 2002) passed by the
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional
District Judge, Suryapet, Nalgonda District (for brevity the
Tribunal), awarding compensation of Rs.35,000/- as against
the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- laid by him under Section 166 of
the Act, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident
that occurred on 18.09.2002.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.09.2002 at
about 11.30 a.m., while the appellant was proceeding on his
Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-24G-6875 with his
friend from Khammam Cross Road to Lorry Association Office
and when they reached just opposite to Fuse Call Office, Kodad
Town, one Auto bearing No.AP-24U-8102 of respondent No.1
came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed driven by
its driver and dashed the said motor cycle, as a result of which
the appellant sustained grievous injuries and fractures. On
report about the accident, the Police of Kodad Town P.S.
registered a case in Crime No.140/2002 for the offence
punishable under Section 338 IPC against respondent No.1
Owner of the Auto. The appellant filed the aforesaid O.P.No.159
of 2004 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by him in the said accident against
respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer,
respectively, of the crime Auto.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 owner of the
crime Auto was set exparte and respondent No.2 Oriental
Insurance Company Limited (insurer) filed its counter denying
the allegations made in the claim petition. On consideration of
the evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence under
Exs.A.1 to A.8 filed on behalf of the appellant-petitioner, and
Ex.B.1 True copy of Insurance Policy filed on behalf of the 2nd
respondent - insurer, by order and decree dated 25.10.2004,
the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.35,000/- under
various heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
the petition till realization fixing liability against respondent
Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-petitioner
has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
4. Heard Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for
the appellantpetitioner, as well as Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam,
learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Insurer.
Perused the order under challenge and also the evidence on
record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation and hence
the compensation is required to be enhanced. He would
further submit that though the appellant had suffered grievous
injury to his left femur, which is evident from Ex.A.2 Certified
copy of Injury Certificate dated 18.09.2002, and filed Ex.A.6
Bunch of Medical Bills worth Rs.39,000/-, the Tribunal has
granted only Rs.21,000/- towards medical expenses. The
learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is required to be
enhanced. It is further argued that the income of the appellant
was taken as Rs.1,500/- per month for the purpose of
calculation of loss of earnings and accordingly awarded
Rs.9,000/- only, which is required to be enhanced.
6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd
respondent insurer submits that the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is adequate and that the rate of interest
awarded by the Tribunal @ 9% per annum is also on higher
side and hence the impugned order does not require any
interference.
7. On consideration of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the respective parties and also the evidence
available on record, there is no dispute with regard to causing
of the accident and the only issue to be decided in this appeal
is regarding adequacy of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal in para-7 of its order had clearly observed
with regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant
and the suffering undergone by him as follows:
.. Since the petitioner sustained grievous injury i.e.,
left femur, he might have bed ridden for a longer period.
It is pertinent to note that the appellant is working as a private
Typist and he has suffered a grievous injury to his left femur.
Therefore, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal towards pain and suffering is enhanced to
Rs.30,000/-. Further, the Tribunal has not assigned any
reasons for not considering the bunch of Medical Bills worth
Rs.39,000/- filed by the appellant, except stating that the
Medical Officer was not examined. The reasoning assigned by
the Tribunal in awarding Rs.21,000/- as against the Medical
Bills of worth Rs.39,000/- appears to be arbitrary. I do not see
any valid reason in disallowing the said Medical Bills, for the
reason that even as per the finding of the Tribunal, the
appellant had received a grievous injury to his left femur and
was bed-ridden for about six months. Therefore, the Medical
Bills worth Rs.39,000/- is granted.
9. Further, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the
notional income of the appellant as Rs.1,500/- per month,
which appears to be on lower side. Therefore, the same is
enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month and for 6 months, it comes
to Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings.
10. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
various heads is now enhanced as mentioned below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation towards Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
Rs. Rs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pain and suffering 5,000.00 30,000.00
2. Medical Bills 21,000.00 39,000.00
3. Loss of earnings for 9,000.00 18,000.00
six months
------------- ------------
TOTAL : 35,000.00 87,000.00
------------- ------------

11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in
part, enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.35,000/-
to Rs.87,000/- (Rupees eighty seven thousand only) with
proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum on the
enhanced amount also from the date of petition till the date of
realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally
held liable to pay compensation and they are directed to
deposit the compensation amount within one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of
compensation. No order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J
05.10.2017.

AP AND TELANGANA HIGH COURT - MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM - In the instant case, there is also a dispute with regard to the age of the deceased. Though the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the age of the deceased was 27 years, the appellants have not produced any proof in that regard, therefore, the Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 35 years notionally basing on the age of his children.= the appropriate multiplier for the age group of the deceased at 35 years is 16. If the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.2,500/- per month, after deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family will come to Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.24,000/- per annum. If the same is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier 16, it comes to Rs.3,84,000/-. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of dependency. Besides the same, the Tribunal has awarded non-pecuniary damages of Rs.15,000/- and if the same is added, it comes to Rs.3,99,000/-.

http://judis.nic.in/HCS/list_new2.asp?FileName=14378&Table_Main_Txt=apordtext
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD
M.A.C.M.A.No.213 OF 2006
06-10-2017
Giddaluri Kasthuramma (died) Giddaluri Naga Jyothi and others. Appellants
K. Sivaprakasam and another Respondents

Counsel for the appellants:Sri M. Venkata Narayana
Counsel for the respondents :None appeared
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. MANU/SC/7089/2008
2. MANU/SC/7776/2007
3. MANU/SC/7915/2007
4. (2007) 3 SCC 538
5. 2009 (6) SCC 121

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

M.A.C.M.A. No.213 of 2006

JUDGMENT :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the Act), is preferred by
the appellants/petitioners seeking enhancement of
compensation challenging the order and decree dated
26.10.2005 in O.P.No.585 of 2003 passed by the Motor
Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge),
Nellore (for brevity the Tribunal), awarding compensation of
Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum as against the
claim of Rs.4,00,000/- laid by them under Section 166 of the
Act, for the death of the deceased Nagaraju in a motor
accident that occurred on 27.05.2003.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the
petitioners, who filed O.P.No.585 of 2003 claiming
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against respondent Nos.1 and
2, who are owner and insurer, respectively, of the offending
Lorry, for the death of the deceased Nagaraju, aged 27
years, in a motor accident that occurred on 27.05.2003 at 2.10
a.m., stating that while the deceased was running a Hotel at
Ananthavaram village, the driver of the lorry bearing
No.NL.01/A-5843 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the hotel, as a result of which, the deceased
died instantaneously.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 owner of the
offending vehicle remained exparte and the 2nd respondent
insurer alone contested the claim by filing counter denying its
liability and contending that the quantum of compensation
claimed is highly excessive and untenable.
4. After considering the pleadings and evidence available on
record, vide order and decree dated 26.10.2005, the Tribunal
awarded a compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- with proportionate
costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition
till realization payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and
severally. Having dissatisfied with the said compensation, the
petitioners have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard Sri M. Venkatanarayana, learned counsel for the
appellantspetitioners. Though notice is served on the 2nd
respondent insurer, none appeared on their behalf. Perused
the order under challenge and also the evidence on record.
6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal
is, whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of
compensation?
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
though the age of the deceased was 27 years old by the date of
accident and he was earning Rs.150/- per day, the Tribunal
has taken the income of the deceased @ Rs.40/- per day and @
Rs.1,200/- per month, which is very meager. His main
argument is with regard to the notional income of the deceased
adopted by the Tribunal at Rs.1,200/- per month in assessing
the compensation.
8. At the outset, it is obvious that the Tribunal has
answered issue No.1 in favour of the appellants holding that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the crime lorry. The said fact has not been
disputed by the insurer of the crime vehicle by filing any appeal
or cross-objections. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard
to the liability of the 2nd respondent insurer. The dispute is
only with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the
deceased as Rs.1,200 per month @ Rs.40/- per day, as he was
working as daily wage labourer. No doubt, there is no proof
with regard to the income of the deceased and hence the
Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.1,200/- per month, which
appears to be on lower side. Therefore, in the light of the
catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Ramesh
Singh v. Satbir Singh , New India Assurance Company
Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Pathak , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Syed Ibrahim , New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v.
Kalpana (Smt) , a minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month can be
taken as the monthly income of a person working in an
unorganized Sector.
10. In the instant case, there is also a dispute with regard to
the age of the deceased. Though the learned counsel for the
appellants contends that the age of the deceased was 27
years, the appellants have not produced any proof in that
regard, therefore, the Tribunal has taken the age of the
deceased as 35 years notionally basing on the age of his
children. However, this Court is not inclined to delve into the
said aspect of fixing the age of the deceased, since the Tribunal
has already taken the age of the deceased as 35 years,
which in my considered view is probable age of the deceased
having grown up children of 13 years old. As per the decision
in Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another , the appropriate multiplier for the
age group of the deceased at 35 years is 16. If the income of
the deceased is taken as Rs.2,500/- per month, after deducting
1/5th towards personal expenses of the deceased, the
contribution to the family will come to Rs.2,000/- per month
and Rs.24,000/- per annum. If the same is multiplied by the
appropriate multiplier 16, it comes to Rs.3,84,000/-.
Therefore, the appellants are entitled for a sum of
Rs.3,84,000/- towards loss of dependency. Besides the same,
the Tribunal has awarded non-pecuniary damages of
Rs.15,000/- and if the same is added, it comes to
Rs.3,99,000/-.

11. Thus the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
enhanced as mentioned below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation towards Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
Rs. Rs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Loss of dependency 1,53,600.00 3,84,000.00
2. Non-pecuniary damages 15,000.00 15,000.00
--------------- ---------------
TOTAL : 1,68,600.00 3,99,000.00
--------------- ---------------

12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in
part, enhancing the amount of compensation from
Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.3,99,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety
nine thousand only) with proportionate costs and the enhanced
amount also shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are
directed to deposit the compensation amount within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On
such deposit, the appellants are permitted to withdraw the
same as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. No
order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________________
GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J
06.10.2017.