Partly allowed

Khaja Sridevi v. Md. Osman

Telangana HC6 Aug 2010CMA/2220/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident death claim appeal, the High Court allowed the appellants' challenge to the quantum of compensation. The Court set aside the Tribunal's estimate of the deceased auto driver's income (Rs. 1,200/month) and enhanced it to Rs. 2,400/month based on precedent and minimum wages. The compensation for loss of dependency was ordered to be doubled.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation for loss of dependency by Rs. 1,63,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.

Khaja Sridevi Vs Md. Osman — Insurance | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2220 of 2001

¶3

Between:

¶4

Khaja Sridevi and others

¶5

.. Appellants

¶6

AND

¶7

Mohd. Osman and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

JUDGMENT:

¶10

The appeal is directed against the award dated 28-02-2001 in O.P.No.837 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cumIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶11

The factual background for the appeal is that Khaja Natraj Sekhar, aged about 32 years, was involved in a motor accident on 03-05-1999 at about 5.30 P.M. when he was travelling in auto No.AP 9 6614 towards Dindigal along with atta bags. The lorry bearing No.APT 6564 owned by the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent came in the opposite direction near the

¶12

bus body building unit of Miyapur and dashed against the auto resulting in grievous injuries to Natraj Sekhar and the auto driver and Natraj Sekhar succumbed to the injuries during the treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Kukatpalli police registered the crime against the lorry driver and the claimants, who are wife, son, parents and sister of the deceased lost their only source of livelihood due to the death of Natraj Sekhar. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶13

While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim putting the claimants to strict proof of all the allegations and denying any rash and negligent driving of the lorry or the lorry driver holding a valid driving licence.

¶14

On the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the petitioners to compensation.

¶15

During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and B.1 were marked.

¶16

The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly concluding from the documents, Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.5, the copies of the First Information Report, Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, and charge sheet, apart from Ex.A.6, copy of the inquest report, that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal then treated the deceased as an auto driver and refused to rely on Ex.A.4-Salary Certificate and assessed the probable income at Rs.1200/- per month. On such notional assessment, the Tribunal deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and applied a multiplier of “17” and arrived at loss of dependency of Rs.1,63,200/-. The Tribunal also

¶17

assessed loss of consortium of the 1^st petitioner at Rs.15,000/-, loss of estate of the petitioners 2 to 5 at Rs.15,000/-, transportation at Rs.5,000/- including funeral expenses and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,98,200/- payable with interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs.

¶18

Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the appeal contending that the Tribunal should have held the deceased as a Supervisor in a Super Market as claimed by the petitioners and should have assessed his income at a much higher level than Rs.1,200/-. The wrong recording by the police in the alteration memo that the deceased was an auto driver should not have led the Tribunal to such a conclusion and hence, they desired that the entire balance of compensation as claimed in the claim petition be awarded to them.

¶19

Heard Sri Venugopala Rao Pasnooru, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P. Harinath Gupta, learned standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent. None entered appearance on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

¶20

The findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the driver of the lorry due to his rash and negligent driving and the liability of the owner and insurer of the lorry to justly and adequately compensate the claim petitioners remained unchallenged and have become final, leaving only the question about the quantum of compensation to be determined in this appeal.

¶21

The age of the deceased at the time of accident, the death and his being otherwise hale and healthy are not in dispute nor is

¶22

the relationship of the claim petitioners with the deceased and their right to receive just and adequate compensation are in dispute. Insofar as the amounts of Rs.15,000/- each granted towards of loss of consortium, loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- granted towards transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses are concerned, they are in tune with the normal scales of compensation awarded under such heads at the relevant time and need no interference.

¶23

It is only the loss of dependency calculated on the notional income of the deceased at Rs.1200/- per month that clearly appears to be requiring interference in appeal. Firstly, the claim petitioners were claiming that the deceased was working as Supervisor in Nagarjuna Super Market, Hyderabad with a monthly salary of Rs.6,500/- per month contributing his entire salary to the family and also produced Ex.A.4 Salary Certificate in this regard. Assuming that Ex.A.4 could not have been acted upon due to the non-examination of any person connected with it and also due to the mention in Ex.A.1-First Information Report that the deceased was an auto driver, the probable income of the deceased as an auto driver could not have been assessed at such a low scale.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants rightly relied on the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Rajwati Devi^[1] , wherein the minimum wages for skilled labourers as on 1- 2-1996 were noted as Rs.2,101/- per month and were adopted in respect of the driver who was the victim in the accident. Learned counsel also rightly referred to another decision of this Court in Md. Iqbal v. Susheela Agarwal^[2] , wherein a learned Judge of this Court had taken the income of an auto driver to be Rs.2,500/per month in respect of the accident that occurred in 1995. The

¶25

accident in question in the present case took place on 3-5-1999 and taking the guidance of the two precedents above referred to and the minimum wages that would have been payable to an auto driver at the relevant time, the approximate income of the deceased from his avocation as an auto driver can be safely and reasonably assessed at Rs.2,400/- per month. If so, the loss of dependency arrived at by the Tribunal has to be doubled keeping in view such notional income out of which 1/3^rd ,of course, has to be deducted towards probable personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive.

¶26

Consequently, the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced by a further sum of Rs.1,63,200/-. Coming to the interest payable on the enhanced portion of the compensation, the length of time for which the respondents have to pay such interest on the compensation since the date of petition in 1999 has to be taken into account and award of such interest at 6% p.a. will be in tune with the normally accepted rate of interest in such cases and will be reasonable and just. Proportionate costs on the enhanced portion of the compensation of course should follow.

¶27

Therefore, the award dated 28-02-2001 in O.P.No.837 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumPrincipal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.1,63,200/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. No further directions need be given regarding disbursement of the compensation at this distance of

¶28

time and this appeal is allowed in part accordingly without costs.

¶29

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶30

Date: 06-08-2010

¶31

Ksn

¶32

[1] 2008 Accident Claims Journal 802

¶33

[2] 2004 (2) Andhra Weekly Reporter 221

Khaja Sridevi v. Md. Osman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaja Sridevi v. Md. Osman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Ananth Gas Services, Bharat Gas Distributors a Vs M/s. Canara bank, a Nationalised Bank

Koya Harish, rep. by his G.P. a. Koya Prasada Rao, Vs Gudivada Bharath Mohan

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Dodla Ramachandra Reddy

Seelam Obaiah Vs The Managing Director

The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Seelam Obaiah

Sham Kumar Vs R. Mahender Reddy