Allowed

Mr.Bheem Setty Balaji v. Mr.S.Abdulla

Telangana HC3 Jan 2014MACMA/2610/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claim appeal, the Single Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1.80 lakhs to Rs.4.85 lakhs. The court held that the Tribunal should award just and reasonable compensation based on established legal principles regarding the deceased's actual monthly earnings of Rs.3,000, allowing the dependents to receive a larger proportionate share.

What did the court decide?

Award of enhanced compensation of Rs.4,85,000 to be shared equally among the three appellants, with interest at 7.5% p.a. No costs awarded.

Mr.Bheem Setty Balaji Vs Mr.S.Abdulla — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No. 2610 of 2005

¶2

Judgment:

¶3

This appeal is preferred by the claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 18.11.2003 passed in MVOP No. 886 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- out of the total claim of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶4

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

¶5

The claimants are the sons of the deceased Bheemsetty Lakshamma. On 29.08.1999 the deceased along with her family members and relatives was travelling in a Commander Jeep bearing No.AP04-C-6413 from K. Boyanapalli village of Rajampet Mandal to Pulukuru village o f Banaganapalli Mandal. When the said jeep crossed Allagadda and nearer to Bathaluru village of Allagadda Mandal at about 3.45 PM the driver of the said jeep, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and consequently the driver had lost control over the jeep and dashed against the tamarind tree situated by the side of the road. The deceased died in the accident. The specific case of the claimants is that the deceased was a weaver and earning Rs.3,000/- per month by weaving.

¶6

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the jeep and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending jeep is insured. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counters and denied the averments of the claimants.

¶7

The Tribunal framed the following issues.

¶8

1. Whether the death of the deceased by name Bheemsetty

¶9

Lakshumma @ Lakshumma occurred due to rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing No.AP04-C-6413 belonging to respondent No.1?

¶10

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

¶11

3. To what relief?

¶12

On behalf of the claimants the first claimant was examined as PW.1 and one G.V. Subbaiah was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RWs.1 and 2 were examined and the copy of policy was marked as Ex.B1.

¶13

On issue No.1 the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep and this finding is not in dispute. On issue No.2 the Tribunal taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act and after deducting 1/3^rd towards her personal expenses estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.10,000/- per annum and by applying the multiplier ‘16’ calculated the loss of dependency at Rs.1,60,000/- and by adding an amount of Rs.20,000/- toward loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and transportation charges of the dead body, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-.

¶14

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants is that the Tribunal has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum when there is evidence to show that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. It is also his submission that as per the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh^[1] , the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of love and affection and care of the minor children and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses.

¶15

Heard Sri Godapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for

¶16

respondent No.1 and Sri K. Krishna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶17

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation.

¶18

PW.1 the son of the deceased has categorically deposed that her mother was weaving sarees and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The only suggestion given to this witness is there is no documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased. It is settled law that even in respect of labours their income should be taken at least Rs.3,000/- per month. Since there are only three dependents, 1/3^rd should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, and if the same is deducted, the monthly loss of earnings comes to Rs.2,000/- and annual loss of earnings would come to Rs.24,000/-. If the same is multiplied with ‘15’, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,60,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of love and affection and care of their mother. They are also entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, total amount comes to Rs.4,85,000/-.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd .^[2] , and in Rajesh’s case (1 supra), wherein the Apex Court categorically held that the Courts have to award just and reasonable compensation irrespective of the total amount claimed by the claimants, but they have to pay the court fees. In the circumstances, I hold that even though the claimants claimed lesser amount they can be awarded the amount which appears to be just and reasonable compensation.

¶20

Accordingly, the MACMA is allowed awarding the compensation of Rs.4,85,000/- and the claimants 1 to 3 shall be

¶21

entitled to each 1/3^rd amount. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. However, in the circumstances, no costs.

¶22

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶23

B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.

¶24

Date: 03.01.2014 Nsr

¶25

[1] (2013) 9 SCC 54

¶26

[2] 2012 (3) ALD 53(SC)

Mr.Bheem Setty Balaji v. Mr.S.Abdulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Bheem Setty Balaji v. Mr.S.Abdulla

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

Kothuru Simhachalam Vs G.Demudu

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

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