Allowed

Dandumenu Veera Veni v. Bagulla Yesudanam

Telangana HC22 Feb 2013CMA/1936/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the wife and children of a deceased jattu coolie to enhance compensation from Rs. 1,80,000 to Rs. 2,50,000. The Court fixed the deceased's income at Rs. 3,000/month, allowed 1/4 deduction for personal expenses, and apportioned 40% negligence to the deceased based on police statements and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Award of Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation with specific distribution and interest provisions; withdrawal permissions for minor claimants.

Dandumenu Veera Veni Vs Bagulla Yesudanam — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1936 OF 2004

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

1. The claimants before the Tribunal are the appellants herein. The first claimant is the wife and claimants 2 to 4 are the children of late Veerraju. They claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, but however, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-. Seeking enhancement of compensation, they filed this appeal.

¶5

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B.Devanand, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company-R3 herein.

¶6

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

¶7

The deceased Veerraju was working as jattu coolie under the second respondent. He was aged about 30 years as on the date of accident i.e., on 17.08.2000. During the course of his employment, he was transporting bricks in the lorry bearing No. AIP 482. While returning, at about 1 pm, when the said lorry reached Thorredu centre, the cleaner of the lorry asked the driver of the lorry to stop the lorry and when the lorry was coming to halt, the driver moved the lorry abruptly and due to the jerk, the deceased fell down and the lorry ran over the right thigh of the deceased. The deceased was shifted to the hospital and while undergoing treatment, he died.

¶8

4. R-1 is the driver of the lorry, R-2 is the owner of the lorry and R-3 is the Insurance Company with which the lorry was insured. R-1 and R-2 remained ex parte. R-3 alone contested the matter and denied the material averments made by the claimants. The Tribunal framed the necessary issues.

¶9

5. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Mandapati Srinu was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, copy of Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B1.

¶10

6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is contributory

¶11

negligence on the part of the deceased on the ground that the deceased tried to alight the vehicle while it was in motion and not completely stopped. The Insurance Company has taken a plea in their counter that there is contributory negligence.

¶12

7. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. She is not an eye witness to the accident. It was suggested that due to negligence of the deceased himself, he died in the accident. P.W.2 is the eye witness, who was also travelling in the same lorry on the date of the accident. According to P.W.2, the driver of the lorry was trying to stop the lorry and in the meanwhile, the deceased tried to get down from the lorry and in that process, the deceased fell down and came under the wheels of the lorry.

¶13

8. On the issue of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimants, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and having deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and by applying ‘17’ multiplier, awarded compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased and awarded total compensation at Rs.1,18,000/- after deducting 50%. 9. Sri B.Devanand, learned Standing Counsel, submits that as per the settled legal position, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is only to be awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, but excess amounts have been awarded to the claimants.

¶14

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that minimum wage in those days was not less than Rs.100/- and it was ranging from Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- and the Tribunal committed mistake in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.1,500/- per month. It is also his submission that since the total number of claimants is more than four, the Tribunal ought to have deducted only 1/4^th towards personal expenses of the deceased.

¶15

11. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 30 years. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 17.08.2000. Having regard to the minimum wages being paid as on the date of the accident and the age of the deceased and his profession, in all probabilities, it appears that the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.100/- per day.

¶16

12. In the above circumstances, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month. Admittedly, there are four claimants, who were depending upon the deceased. In the above circumstances, only 1/4^th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. Therefore, if Rs.750/- (Rs.3,000/- x ¼) is deducted towards personal expenses, the loss of earnings would come to Rs.2,250/- (Rs.3,000/- - Rs.750/-) per month and the loss of earnings would be Rs.27,000/- (Rs.2,250/- x 12). After applying ‘17’ multiplier, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.4,59,000/- (Rs.27,000/- x ‘17’). The claimants are entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and the first respondent is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs.4,79,000/- (Rs.4,59,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.10,000/-).

¶17

13. As seen from the record, the statement of the deceased was recorded by the police while he was undergoing treatment. In his statement, the deceased had categorically stated that while the driver had slowed down the lorry and while he was trying to get down from the lorry, the driver suddenly enhanced the speed and he fell down from the lorry. Admittedly, the police filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry wherein, it is alleged that the driver of the lorry accelerated the speed of the lorry. In the above circumstances, the negligence can be apportioned at 60% : 40% between the driver of the lorry and the deceased.

¶18

14. Thus, if 40% is deducted from Rs.4,79,000/-, the compensation comes to Rs.2,87,400/- (Rs.4,79,000/- x 40% = Rs.1,91,600/-, Rs.4,79,000/- - Rs.1,91,600/- = Rs.2,87,400/-). However, since the

¶19

claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- only, the same is restricted to Rs.2,50,000/- only.

¶20

15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) is awarded to the claimants as compensation. Out of the compensation awarded, the first claimant shall take Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and the other claimants shall take Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each. The first claimant and the second claimant (since appears to have attained majority) are permitted to withdraw the amounts awarded to them with accrued interest thereon. The third claimant is permitted to withdraw half of the amount awarded to her with accrued interest thereon. Her remaining half of the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of five years. However, the first claimant shall be permitted to withdraw the periodical interest on the fixed deposit of fourth claimant till he attains majority and thereafter, the fourth claimant may himself withdraw periodical interest on his fixed deposit. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶21

___________________ (B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J)

¶22

22^nd February 2013 RRB

Dandumenu Veera Veni v. Bagulla Yesudanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dandumenu Veera Veni v. Bagulla Yesudanam

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

Smt. Sujatha , Nirmala, Vs S.Gopala Krishna

G.Madhavi Vs G.Siva Sankar

Pamulaparthi Sujatha Vs P. Anil Kumar

V.v.Ramana Vs Sri Bhaskar Rao

Smt.B.Supraja Vs B.Srikanth

Smt. Balne Chaithnaya, Vs Balne Hariprasad