Allowed

Kothuru Simhachalam v. G.Demudu

Telangana HC3 Jan 2014MACMA/1677/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award of Rs.60,000 compensation for a fatal road accident. The single judge held the award unreasonable due to non-application of the multiplier method, recalculated the net loss of earnings at Rs.2,880/month, applied a multiplier of 13, and enhanced compensation to Rs.5,00,000 including loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation set at Rs.5,00,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.

Kothuru Simhachalam Vs G.Demudu — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

MA CMA No.1677 of 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.04.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.768 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶5

2. The parties herein will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶6

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

¶7

The first claimant is the wife, second claimant is the son and the third claimant is the daughter of late Kothuru Mallesu, who will be referred to as ‘deceased’ hereinafter. On 07.03.2004, the deceased was attending the calls of nature in Chinnaiayya Palem village, and in the meanwhile, the auto bearing No.AP 31 U 6210 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came from Pendurthi side proceeding towards Sabbavaram and dashed against the deceased, consequently, the deceased sustained head injury and he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Sabbavaram, where he died while undergoing treatment on the same day. The claimants stated that the deceased was hale and healthy and earning Rs.4,000/-per month by working as a Potter at the time of accident. The claimants claimed a total

¶8

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶9

4. The owner of the vehicle-R1 remained ex parte. The insurance company-R2, with which the vehicle was insured, filed counter and denied the material averments made by the claimants.

¶10

5. The Tribunal framed the following issues;

¶11

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.AP 31 U 6210 driven by the first respondent?

¶12

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation amount

¶13

claimed

¶14

as prayed for from the respondents?

¶15

3. To what relief?

¶16

6. On behalf of the claimants, the second claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one Srikakulapu Appa Rao was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. None was examined and no document was marked on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

7. The Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, which is not in dispute in this appeal. On issue No.2, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the claimants.

¶18

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that the Tribunal has not followed the multiplier method. It is his submission that the relevant multiplier applicable in this case is ‘12’ and that the first claimant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of consortium and the claimants are

¶19

entitled to Rs.25,000/-towards funeral expenses as per the judgment of the Apex Court in RAJESH v. RAJBIR SING H^[1] . It is also his submission that the Tribunal can award more than the claim of the claimants in the light of the said judgment and also in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in LAXMAN @ LAXMAN MOURYA v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITE D^[2] .

¶20

9. I have gone through the record. The order of the Tribunal is absolutely unreasonable. The Tribunal failed to follow the multiplier method. Unfortunately, there is no discussion with regard to the income of the deceased. The age of the deceased is shown as 50 years in the claim petition.

¶21

10. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. According to him, his father was making pots and earning Rs.4,000/-per month. He further deposed that his father used to supply 22 to 30 pots per day.

¶22

11. As seen from the inquest report-Ex.A2 and the Post Mortem Certificate-Ex.A3, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 50 years. Therefore, there is no difficulty to take the age of the deceased as 50 years. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in

¶23

SARLA VERMA V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIO N^[3] , the multiplier ‘13’ will apply where the age of the deceased is in between 46 to 50 years. In fact, there should be 50% to the income where the victim is between the age group of 50 and 60

¶24

years. A careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1 reveals that in rainy season, the deceased used to sell only 4 or 5 pots per day. In the above circumstances, it would be just and reasonable to take the income of the deceased at Rs.3,600/-per month. If 1/3^rd is deducted towards his personal expenses, the net loss of earnings would come to Rs.2,400/-per month and so, the annual income comes to Rs.28,800/- and if it is multiplied with ‘13’, it comes to Rs.3,74,400/-. As per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Rajesh’s case supra, the first claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of consortium and the claimants are entitled to Rs.25,000/-towards funeral expenses. In total, the claimants are entitled to Rs.4,99,400/- rounded to Rs.5,00,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization.

¶25

12. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand disposed of.

¶26

____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶27

3^rd January, 2014 sj

¶28

[1] 2013 ACJ 1403 [2] 2012 (3) ALD 53(SC)

¶29

[3] (2009) 6 SCC 121

Kothuru Simhachalam v. G.Demudu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothuru Simhachalam v. G.Demudu

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

Rapuru Krishnaiah, Vs Konda Veera Raghavulu

Thummala Sudhakar Rao, Vs Chevuru Padmaja

D.Madhusudanaian Vs M.Sunder Rao

Mr.Bheem Setty Balaji Vs Mr.S.Abdulla

Mr.P.S.Chouhan Vs The Hyderabad Race Club

Mr. K.Whittaker Vs Church Of South India (Synod)