Allowed

Kokkula Eswaramma v. Sabavathi Bojya

Telangana HC28 Nov 2011MACMA/636/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal filed by the heirs of a deceased mason against an MCAT order awarding Rs.1,79,500 compensation. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,50,000, rejecting the Tribunal's valuation of the deceased as a non-earner despite evidence of his regular employment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is modified; the appellants granted Rs.3,50,000 with interest.

Kokkula Eswaramma Vs Sabavathi Bojya — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.636 of 2008

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal is directed against the order, dated 25.09.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.175 of 2005 on the file of the

¶5

learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellants herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,79,500/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition.

¶6

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶7

3. Appellants herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of the deceased-K.Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.01.2005. 1^st claimant is the wife; 2^nd claimant is the son and claimants 3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. According to them,

¶8

on that day, when the deceased was going by walk along the road side near telephone exchange at about 2.15 p.m., an RTC bus bearing No.11Z 4580, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the deceased as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.1 of 2005 was registered against the driver of the bus. It is pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was aged 30 years; working as a mason and earning Rs.4500/- per month.

¶9

4. 1^st respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte . 2^nd respondent-APSRTC filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability.

¶10

5. During enquiry before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the appellants. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

¶12

the bus by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by way of any appeal. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.1,79,500/- with interest @ 7.5%p.a., from the date of the petition. Not satisfied with the same, claimants filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.

¶13

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum, as per the II Schedule of the Act, though the petitioner is working as mason and earning Rs.4500/- per month. The evidence on record shows that the petitioner was working as a mason and was aged 30 years. No doubt, claimants have not adduced any evidence in proof of the income of the deceased, which is claimed at Rs.4500/- per month. Even if the deceased is considered to be a coolie, it can be reasonably estimated that he would be earning around Rs.100/- per day on an average. Once it is shown that the deceased was pursuing some avocation and was capable of earning income as he was hale and hearty and was aged around 30 years, the Tribunal ought not to have taken the notional

¶14

income of Rs.15,000/-, treating the deceased as a non-earning member. In the circumstances, it is considered just and reasonable to estimate the income of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day which comes to Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. Deducting 1/3^rd towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘17’, which is considered appropriate to the age of the deceased. Applying the same, the loss of dependency works out to Rs.4,08,000/- ( Rs.24,000/- X 17). However, claimants have restricted their claim only to Rs.3,50,000/-. Hence, they are entitled for the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal and at 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of the appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly.

¶15

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above.

¶16

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶17

28^th November, 2011 Tsy

Kokkula Eswaramma v. Sabavathi Bojya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kokkula Eswaramma v. Sabavathi Bojya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Rafi Khan , Mohdd Ayub Khan Vs U.Vasundhara

G.Rama Rao, Vs G.Nagender Rao

Bandi Sudhakar Reddy Vs Sree Mahaveer Real Estates, Nellore

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs K.Lakshmi

Beeravolu Linga Reddy (Died as Per L.Rs) Vs N.Prasanna Raju

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Patlola Sainath Reddy