Partly allowed

Shaik Abdul Razaak, v. S. Babu

Telangana HC3 Jul 2012CMA/892/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil miscellaneous appeal concerns the enhancement of compensation for the death of a minor child in a motor vehicle accident. The appellate court enhanced the award from Rs.50,000 to Rs.70,000 after finding no proof of the father's income and reduced the interest rate from 9% to 7.5% per annum, resulting in a partly allowed appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 70,000; interest rate reduced to 7.5% per annum; appeal partly allowed.

Shaik Abdul Razaak, Vs S. Babu — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.892 of 2003

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

¶4

The present appeal is filed by the claimants against the order, dated 28.11.2002, passed in O.P.No.372 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum-Additional District Court, Anantapur (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that the claimants are the parents of the deceased Munni, who was aged about 10 years when she died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.02.1997. On account of her death in the said motor vehicle accident, the claimants filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking compensation of Rs.80,000/-.

¶6

The learned Tribunal below, after making an enquiry into the claim, awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Not being satisfied with the same, the claimants preferred the present appeal seeking to enhance the compensation.

¶7

In child death compensation cases since the children are not capable of having any income, the usual practice is to grant reasonable amount of compensation taking into consideration the status of the parents, the future prospect of the child and also the uncertainties. Ultimately, the exercise is nothing but a guess work.

¶8

In the instant case, the first claimant, who is the father of the deceased, is said to be a small trader in utensils of steel and brass and was said to be earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In proof of his income, no evidence has been placed on record. The deceased-Munni was studying IV Class in Government Elementary School at Dharmavaram. Considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.70,000/- can be granted as compensation to the claimants on account of death of

¶9

the deceased-Munni, who was aged about 10 years on the date of her death.

¶10

The amount of compensation, however, is in addition to what was paid to the claimants by the learned Tribunal below under no fault liability clause. The learned Tribunal below against the claim of Rs.80,000/- awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The enhancement in the present appeal therefore would be Rs.20,000/-. The interest granted by the learned Tribunal below at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount being on higher side, the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation.

¶11

With the above enhancement in the compensation and reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

___________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶13

02^nd July 2012 DR

Shaik Abdul Razaak, v. S. Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Abdul Razaak, v. S. Babu

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

Syed Afzal Hussain Vs T.M. Gnaneswar Rao

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Kandregula Venkata Ramanamma

A.P.S..R.T.C. Vs Sheelam Vinoda

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Jadhav Madhu

B.M. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kalakada Fathima BEE.AND5 Others

M/s. Apsrtc, rep. by its General Manager, Vs Thipparabayam Anitha