Partly allowed

Nimmagadda Baby Sarojini v. Kothapalli Vishwakantha Rao

Telangana HC12 Dec 2013MACMA/208/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment enhances compensation awarded in a motor accident death case. The court revised total loss of income based on agricultural labor standards, added Rs.1 lakh for consortium and Rs.25,000 for funeral expenses, and allocated shares amongst the wife, mother, and son.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,63,000/- to Rs.3,94,000/- comprising loss of income, consortium, and funeral expenses, with interest conditions.

Nimmagadda Baby Sarojini Vs Kothapalli Vishwakantha… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No. 208 of 2005

¶3

Judgment:

¶4

Aggrieved by the award, dated 30.09.2004, passed in M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.1,63,000/- was awarded towards compensation out of total claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the claimants before the Tribunal filed this appeal.

¶5

During the pendency of the appeal, the claimants filed MACMAMP No.5616 of 2013 seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.8,25,000/- and this Court, by an order dated 19.11.2013, allowed the said petition.

¶6

The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶7

The brief facts of the case are as follows. The first claimant is the wife, second claimant is the mother and the third claimant is the son of the deceased Babu Rajendra Prasad. On 26.02.2000 at about 7.15 PM the deceased Nimmagadda Babu Rajendra Prasad and his friend were going on a scooter bearing No. ABG 1762 along TenaliKolluru road from Tenali to Donepudi and when they reached near Yadavuru cross road, the offending jeep bearing No. ATG 36 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the scooter from its behind and as a result the deceased Babu Rajendra Prasad and another sustained injuries. They were shifted to the Government Hospital, Tenali and from there to Government General Hospital, Guntur, where the deceased Babu Rajendra Prasad died while undergoing treatment. The claimants case is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. It is also their case that the deceased was aged about 45 years and

¶8

earning Rs.75,000/- per annum from agriculture and paddy commission business.

¶9

The first respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim of the claimants on various grounds.

¶10

The Tribunal framed the following issues.

¶11

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No.ATG 36 by its driver or not?

¶12

2. Whether R2 provided insurance cover to the accident vehicle?

¶13

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount, from whom?

¶14

4. To what relief?

¶15

On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as PW.1 and another witness was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the respondents and no documents have been marked.

¶16

The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep is not in dispute and there is no cross appeal.

¶17

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶18

The main contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that though the deceased was getting regular income on agriculture and on paddy commission business, the Tribunal has not taken the same into consideration merely on the ground that no documents have been filed. His next submission is that the first claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium and the claimants are also entitled

¶19

to Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses as per the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh^[1] .

¶20

According to PW.1, the wife of the deceased, the deceased was cultivating Ac.2-00 of their own land apart from cultivating Ac.8-00 of land by taking it on lease. Her specific case is that the deceased was earning Rs.70,000/- per annum. It is also her case that her husband was also doing paddy commission business. However, no documents have been filed to show that the deceased was cultivating Ac.2-00 of land or that he was earning Rs.70,000/- per annum. She has admitted that after the death of her husband, she gave her Ac.2-00 of land on lease and getting Rs.5,000/- per annum towards rent. The Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. It appears that the Tribunal has ignored the fact that the deceased was married having wife, son and mother and they are dependent on him and that he was aged about 45 years as on the date of his death. Even if it is assumed that the deceased was regularly working as an agriculturist or agricultural labourer, it appears that the income of an agricultural labourer may be ranging between Rs.70/- and Rs.100/- per day during the relevant period and if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.80/- per day the monthly income would come to Rs.2,400/and if 1/3^rd is deducted from the same towards his personal expenses the net loss of income comes to Rs.1600/- per month i.e., Rs.19,200/(Rs.1600/- x 12) per annum. If the same is multiplied with ‘14’ the total loss of income comes to Rs.2,68,800/-, which can be rounded off to Rs.2,69,000/-.

¶21

The Apex Court in Rajesh’s case (1 supra) observed that it would be just and reasonable to award at least Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of consortium to the spouse. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/is awarded towards consortium. In the same judgment it was held that

¶22

Rs.25,000/- should be awarded towards funeral expenses and accordingly an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the claimants towards funeral expenses.

¶23

In the above circumstances, the MACMA is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,63,000/- to Rs.3,94,000/(2,69,000 + 1,00,000/- + 25,000/-). Out of the said compensation amount, the first claimant-wife is entitled to receive Rs.2,00,000/-, the second claimant-mother is entitled to receive Rs.70,000/- and the third claimant-son is entitled to receive Rs.1,24,000/-. The compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall carry interest at 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization and as far as the remaining amount of above Rs.2,00,000/- i.e., Rs.1,94,000/- is concerned, the claimants are not entitled for interest thereon, however, if the respondents failed to deposit the entire remaining compensation amount within 60 days from today, the claimants shall be entitled to interest on Rs.,1,94,000/- at 6% p.a., from the date of this order till realization. However, in the circumstances, no costs.

¶24

______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.

¶25

Date: 12.12.2013 Nsr

¶26

[1] (2013) 9 SCC 54

Nimmagadda Baby Sarojini v. Kothapalli Vishwakantha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimmagadda Baby Sarojini v. Kothapalli Vishwakantha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paladugu Ramesh Vs Shaik Begum Bee (died)

Ashok Kumar Agrwal, Vs Smt. K.Vijaya

Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs K.Vijalya

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Gorumutchu Venkateswara RAo

Pendyala Prasanna Kumari Vs Mohd. Amruz Zaman

Pochareddy Srihari Reddy, Vs Veeriboina Harikrishna